Anthony Tuckney (1599–1670) On Union With Christ

By Youngchun Cho

[Youngchun Cho is assistant pastor at Jubilee Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, PA.]

Abstract

This article investigates the soteriology of Anthony Tuckney (1599–1670), an influential member of the Westminster Assembly, focusing on his understanding of union with Christ. Tuckney presented union with Christ as undergirding and permeating the whole of the ordo salutis. The believer is first united to Christ through faith and then participates in every redemptive benefit as a result of this union. Yet Tuckney did not deny the need to make a distinction between each benefit in an orderly manner. In Tuckney’s soteriology, union with Christ and the ordo salutis are complementary, not competitive. This study aims to rebut the accusation that the Westminster Standards pursued logical precision at the expense of the dynamic aspect of union with Christ.

----------------

According to Geerhardus Vos, the distinguishing mark of the Reformed understanding of salvation is the primacy of union with Christ: “One is first united to Christ, the Mediator of the covenant, by a mystical union, which finds its conscious recognition in faith. By this union with Christ all that is in Christ is simultaneously given.”[1] It has been widely acknowledged that John Calvin represents this uniqueness of Reformed theology, which emphasizes union with Christ as the central soteric reality of the gospel.[2] Recent studies have further demonstrated that Calvin’s substantial understanding of union with Christ was a product of dialogues with such other sixteenth-century Reformers as Heinrich Bullinger and Peter Martyr Vermigli.[3] Later seventeenth-century Reformed theologians, however, have been criticized as being obsessed with the language of causality and the ordered structure of soteriology, having thereby abandoned the heritage of union-centered theology of the Reformation and tending toward legalism instead. The Westminster Confession of Faith, which is considered the most representative example of seventeenth-century Protestant orthodoxy, has been particularly contrasted with Calvin in this regard.

For example, James B. Torrance criticizes the Westminster divines for following the soteriology of William Perkins’s The Golden Chain rather than Calvin’s Institutes; as a result, the Confession presents God as a harsh Judge instead of a benevolent Father, admits the priority of law over grace, denies the converting effect of the Lord’s Supper, and neglects the significance of pneumatology.[4] Thomas F. Torrance also maintains that the Westminster Confession describes God “not primarily as Father, but primarily as creator, lawgiver and judge.”[5] With such a rigid view of God, the soteriology of the Westminster Confession turns into a legalistic system, following “a medieval conception of the ordo salutis (reached through various stages of grace leading to union with Christ), which reversed the teaching of Calvin that it is through union with Christ first that we participate in all his benefits.”[6] Whereas participation in redemptive benefits through union with Christ by faith and its corollary of assurance of salvation were central to the Reformation in general, as illustrated best in Calvin, the Westminster divines departed from this heritage and returned to medieval soteriology. Charles Partee similarly contrasts Calvin and the Westminster divines and asserts that “Calvin is not a Calvinist because union with Christ is at the heart of his theology—and not theirs.”[7]

Did the Westminster divines lose their focus on union with Christ? Was the doctrine of union with Christ incompatible with the ordo salutis in seventeenth-century Reformed theology? The present article answers these questions by exploring the soteriology of Anthony Tuckney, an important member of the Westminster Assembly.[8] Tuckney was chairman of the catechism committee and contributed to the shaping of the Shorter and Larger Catechisms, both of which emphasize union and communion with Christ.[9] At the same time, he was instrumental in honing the soteriological section in the Confession, which takes a sequential approach to the matter. He participated in the committee in charge of drafting the Westminster Confession and also reported on many articles to the full assembly as the representative of the committee. The articles he helped to shape include “Free Will,” “Perseverance and Certainty of Salvation,” “Sanctification and Saving Faith,” “Repentance unto Life,” “Good Works,” and “Religious Worship and Sabbath Day,” key soteriological and practical sections of the Confession.[10] Because of Tuckney’s strategic place in formulating the assembly’s principal theological documents, his theology provides a valuable reference point for understanding the connection between union with Christ and the ordo salutis.

I. The Centrality Of Union With Christ

The theme of union with Christ runs through Anthony Tuckney’s writings. To illustrate, Thanatoktasia or Death Disarmed, a 1653 funeral sermon, explains how such redemptive benefits as justification, sanctification, and glorification flow from union with Christ and provide assurance of salvation to the believer in death as well as in life.[11] Tuckney’s posthumous work, Forty Sermons (1676), which was edited by his son, also indicates that union with Christ was his lifetime theological interest. Though Forty Sermons contains diverse sermons preached on different texts and occasions, the emphasis on the believer’s union with Christ runs through most of them. The work opens with twelve sermons on Phil 3:5–8 that focus on the supremacy and benefits of knowledge of Jesus Christ, and it ends with two sermons on Phil 1:21, “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”[12] Four sermons on Prov 8 present a christological understanding of the wisdom in Proverbs and highlight Christ as the utmost substance and treasure of all things on earth.[13] Three sermons on Ps 73:28, “But it is good for me to draw near to God,” teach that fellowship with God through Christ is the end for which we are created and redeemed.[14]

What, then, is Tuckney’s idea of union with Christ? Though he does not provide a concrete definition of the union, Tuckney clarifies its nature by way of negation. Observing that the notion of union with Christ was appropriated widely but incorrectly in many cases, he seeks to set forth what union with Christ is not. First, union with Christ does not mean a philosophical deification. In his 1652 commencement sermon, None But Christ, Tuckney takes aim at Cambridge Platonism and proclaims that “it is no Platonic faith (as some call) which can unite us at so great an odds to God, without Christ, our alone Mediator, to come between, and make up the breach.”[15] He then continues to maintain how insufficient one’s philosophical endeavor is in the realm of religion.[16] In his sermon on 2 Pet 1:4, Tuckney rejects explicitly the idea that a human soul can ascend into and partake of a divine mind: “Some high flown Platonists of our times” assert that “by their divine contemplations they are abstracted from their own dark personality, their humanity annihilated, and they swallowed up in the profound abyss of the Divinity into which they are wholly transported,” but this belongs to one of the most corrupt understandings of partaking of the divine nature, argues Tuckney.[17]

What is more, union with Christ does not imply a mystical deification. A group of Enthusiasts claimed that “they are Godded with God, and Christed with Christ” through their intimate union and communion with Christ, but Tuckney viewed such a pretense “to get so near as properly to participate of the essence of God” as “Antichristian Blasphemy.”[18] Tuckney was adamant in affirming that union with Christ does not entail any degree of mixture of the human with the divine and that any attempt by a believer to partake of divine nature even in close union with Christ is presumptuous. Observing that this sort of extreme mysticism was influenced by Andreas Osiander’s teaching that sinners are justified by participation in Christ’s divine perfection, Tuckney rebutted Osiander’s arguments point by point.[19]

Instead, Tuckney set forth what union with Christ is in terms of a covenant solidarity between Christ and the believer. Adam was a representative of the human race, and so was Christ. One’s destiny depends upon nothing other than whether he belongs to Adam or to Christ.[20] To stress solidarity with Christ’s federal headship, Tuckney observes diverse titles given to Christ in Scripture.

Christ is the cornerstone and foundation, the root and true vine, the head of the body, the beloved husband, and so forth.[21] According to this covenantal scheme, as the first fruit is holy, the lump also becomes holy; as the root is holy, its branches become holy. Likewise, since Christ is “both first fruits and root and the whole covenant,” all the redemptive benefits, which are procured by the covenant head, flow into its members by virtue of the unity.[22] In this connection, Tuckney affirms that no single part of salvation is possible apart from Christ.

This truth, that out of Christ no salvation is further made out from all the parts of this salvation, in the whole progress from first to last, all is in and by Jesus Christ. Elected in him, Ephes. 1.4. Redeemed by him; in whom we have Redemption through his blood. verse 7. If Adopted. It is in our Elder Brothers right, unto the Adoption of Children by Jesus Christ. v. 5. If justified. It is by his righteousness imputed; accepted, but in the Beloved. v. 6. If sanctified. It is by his Spirit communicated, He hath chosen us in him to be holy. v. 4. If saved. It is by his merit imparted. In whom also we have obtained an Inheritance. v. 11. And blessed with all spiritual blessing in heavenly places, but still in Christ. v. 3.[23]

Election, adoption, justification, and sanctification are not discrete or independent entities, but incorporated into the common foundation, Christ. Christ himself has become “wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption” for his covenant member, and a believer possesses all these realities derivatively by virtue of his union with Christ.[24]Such a conviction that one’s union with Christ is the all-encompassing condition in which each part of the ordo salutis takes place is also evident in Tuckney’s early work, A Briefe and Pithy Catechisme (1628).

[6] Q. How may these benefits come to us in this covenant of grace by this application? Ans: 1. by our union with Christ. 2. by that communion of his benefits. 

[7] Q. What is our union with Christ? Ans. Our union with Christ is when God by his worde & spirit or whatsoever means is pleased to drawe us from our sinfull estate to Christ & this is our vocation. 

[8] Q. What are these benefits? Ans. They are relative or absolute. Relative which are in God’s imputation, as our justification & adoption. Absolute, which are inherent in us. Sanctification & glorification.[25]

Here Tuckney again highlights the pivotal role of union with Christ in the application of covenantal benefits. “Our union with Christ” enables us to partake of such benefits as vocation, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification. On the one hand, justification and adoption are called relative in that they are actualized only through God’s imputation. By calling these two “relative,” Tuckney excludes any notion that one’s justification and adoption rely upon inherent godliness within oneself. To put it differently, justification and adoption are external or alien blessings imputed to the believer. On the other hand, sanctification and glorification belong to the category of absolute benefit in that they “have an absolute beinge & a reale work in a christians hearte.”[26] Tuckney’s point here is that they are internal realities the Spirit works in the believer. Vocation is “the first beginning of sanctification” and “the first infusion of grace.”[27] Sanctification “includes the whole worke of God’s Spirit in us,” and “is an instrument to apprehende Christ & as an inherent qualitye of grace.”[28] Such expressions as “infusion of grace” and “inherent quality” may appear to be Roman Catholic. What Tuckney means by these words, however, is not to show sympathy with a synergistic understanding of salvation that exalts inherent righteousness within a person, but to highlight that the benefits from union with Christ should entail the actual transformation of the life of the justified as well as the change in their status. To put it differently, when we believe in Christ, the benefits extra nos (outside of us) and in nobis (in us) occur together, and both of them originate from union with Christ. Thus Tuckney incorporates diverse aspects of soteriology into the concept of union with Christ, to which we now turn.

II. Calling And Union With Christ

For Tuckney, calling or vocation is the point at which the believer is united to Christ. Tuckney speaks of vocation as a synonym of union with Christ: “Our union with Christ is when God by his worde & spirit or whatsoever means is pleased to drawe us from our sinfull estate to Christ & this is our vocation.”[29] Or, following the order in Rom 8:30, Tuckney presents calling or vocation as the first benefit that flows from union with Christ.[30] He distinguishes between effectual calling and ineffectual calling. Not every calling is effectual. Tuckney defines ineffectual calling as the calling that “comes into the heart and falls as on stony ground.”[31] There are some outward signs of grace in the ineffectual calling. For example, it may awaken a person to a sense of sin and misery, thereby causing him to long for a remedy for his miserable plight. It may also bring him to “some kind of degree of possession of the thing called for” and “some outward correspondence, as to reform many sins.”[32] That is to say, ineffectual calling may produce a certain degree of theological understanding and ethical improvements. Yet this is short of a saving effect because it does not bring one’s heart fully to Christ.[33] On the other hand, effectual calling “doeth not onely suadere [propose or suggest] but persuadere [convince], fully persuade to receive Christ to our salvation.”[34] The essence of effectual calling goes beyond intellectual assent to a proposed doctrine or pursuit of moral reformation but lies in accepting Christ himself.

This effectual calling is the sovereign work of the Triune God.[35] No human works or merits can procure the calling since human nature is totally depraved and completely dead in spiritual matters.[36] No one can please God until he is “reunited to him in Christ.”[37] The cause of the sinner’s reunification into this covenantal relationship is “grace, speciall grace, & only grace.”[38] God the Father’s predestination, which is the eternal ground of one’s union with Christ, effects this calling.[39] The Son of God calls the sinner in his three offices of prophet, priest, and king. The Spirit, who is “the medium, vinculum & causa” [means, bond & cause] of new life,[40] applies what Christ has achieved to the believer, thereby actualizing one’s union with Christ.[41]

III. Justification And Union With Christ

As Van Dixhoorn has demonstrated, the Westminster divines debated over justification extensively to articulate its meaning as precisely as possible.[42] Diverse subjects, including the nature of justification, the relationship between justification and sanctification, and the imputation of Christ’s obedience, were examined in depth. The same was true for Tuckney. He argues that the doctrine of justification is indeed crucial, because it manifests the glory of God’s mercy and justice and guarantees one’s comfort both in life and death.[43] He also observes that much confusion and many misunderstandings exist regarding this essential doctrine.[44] As a result, he pursues a more thorough and rigorous examination of this topic than of any other.

First of all, Tuckney affirms the priority of union with Christ in its relation to justification. He presents justification as deriving from union with Christ.

1. Union with Christ is the unmediated fruit of faith. Accordingly, by it alone we first receive Christ (John 1:12); and therefore we are united with him (Eph. 3:17).
2. This union with Christ through faith arises originally in effectual calling, through which we come to Christ (1 Pet. 2:4). And with gratitude we accept him as he is freely offered to us in the gospel.
3. I grant that justification is the fruit of faith, mediated by this union (which is accomplished in our calling). For those whom he first called, they he then justified (Rom. 8:30).[45]

Faith brings a person to union with Christ, and so this union is said to be “the immediate fruit of faith.” However, this does not mean that the union is caused by some inherent worth of faith. Faith is nothing but an instrument by means of which one accepts Christ. It is “the receiving hand” or “an empty hand to receive all of God’s free largess.” Regarding justification, faith simply says, “Christ shall be All in All.”[46] The role of faith in justification is simply to point to Christ, the source of justification. So all we have to do “for our justification and acceptance with God” is “to be found in Christ, as to be able to say … Dominus meus, Deus meus, Christus meus. Amor meus & omnia [the Lord is mine, God is mine, Christ is mine. My love and everything].”[47] Being in Christ through faith is the only way in which we are justified.

In order to secure the centrality of Christ in justification, Tuckney disputes against those who claim that a beliver’s inherent righteousness can contribute to his justification. This view is unacceptable because it undermines the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as the only ground on which God accepts a sinner. Imputation of Christ’s righteousness is so vital in salvation, Tuckney warns, that if this is denied, the whole link in the so-called golden chain (Rom 8:29–30) will be broken.

We have nothing inherent in ourselves to stick to; Imputed righteousness not only by Papists must be derided; But be too much sleighted and undervalued by too many amongst our selves; the great mystery of godlinesse, and the whole counsel of God in Christ must all at once be dasht, and all the links of that golden Chain snappt asunder, piè scilicet![48] 

And our proud hearts too self-full are loath to go out of themselves to Christ. His imputed righteousnesse is to us a riddle, and something inherent in us we make our idol. Something in us some way our own. The Pharisees and Jews of old, and Pelagius, with all his heirs and allies in their several shapes to this day, they would have some way or other to commend us to God.[49]

In the quotations above, Tuckney indicates two adversaries of the orthodox teaching of imputed righteousness: “Papists” and “many amongst ourselves.” Regarding the first group, medieval scholastics argued, and modern papists still argue, that infused righteousness and good works in a person, instead of Christ’s righteousness apprehended by faith, are the instrumental cause of justification. The Council of Trent declared that justification is “not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace and of the gifts whereby man of unjust becomes just,” and that “we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us.”[50] Rejecting the Protestant principle of sola fide, Bellarmine also affirmed that faith can justify only when it is not separated from all other virtues within a person, such as charity, hope, love, penitence, and so on.[51] One of their arguments was that justificare in Latin originates from facio (“to do”), as indicated by its suffix -facere. God does not merely consider a sinner as righteous on account of Christ’s righteousness, but makes the sinner actually righteous through the infusion of grace. So the essence of justification consists in God’s actual transformation of a person, rather than in a simple declaration of a person as righteous.

Tuckney criticized this view for not distinguishing properly between justification and sanctification, but rather intermingling them.[52] Not every Latin verb ending with -facere indicates the acquisition of new inherent quality. Lucrifacere (“to gain money”) does not imply that an inherent quality of money is given, but that a new relationship is established between money and a person. When magnificare is applied to what the Virgin Mary did to the Lord, one must conclude not that she made him great, but rather that she declared that the Lord is great. Likewise justificare (“to justify”) is to be understood not as creating an inherent righteousness, but as introducing a new relationship, like lucrifacere, or as exhibiting a declaration of righteousness, like magnificare.[53] What is more, the nature of justification should be decided by examining the original meaning of הצדיק in Hebrew and δικαιόω in Greek, rather than the Latin word justificare. The usage of these terms in Scripture demonstrates that to justify is related to a public and forensic tribunal rather than private judgment.[54] Tuckney asserts that forensic declaration is the essence of justification.

The justification of the sinner before God is always understood in the forensic sense only. It is never used in a formal sense. That is, its uses do not mean to make a man righteous who was previously unrighteous, by the infusing of the disposition of righteousness either physically or morally. Rather, it means to freely absolve someone wicked in himself both because of the righteousness of Christ imputed to him by God, truly apprehended by faith, and applied to him, to consider him righteous, to proclaim him righteous, and to establish him as truly righteous as a consequence of that imputation. And also, as a consequence of this, to treat him as righteous in every respect.[55]

Thus he emphasizes the forensic nature of justification as much as he does to prohibit the surreptitious entry of the idea that any inherent factor within a person is a possible contribution to justification.

In addition to papists, Tuckney was also concerned that some Protestants did not fully adhere to the doctrine of imputation of Christ’s righteousness. One of these was Benjamin Whichcote, who allowed that the moral transformation of the believer, in addition to Christ’s objective work of redemption, is a subjective ground of justification. He made a distinction between Christ’s work for us—“to be believed-on by us as a sacrifice for the expiation and atonement of sin”—and his work in us—“to be felt in us as the new man”—and merged the two as a twofold ground of justification: “Christ does not save us; by only doing for us, without us.… Christ is to be acknowledged, as a principle of grace in us; as well as an advocate for us.”[56] If someone maintains that he is reconciled with God on account of Christ’s work without his life being transformed to be God-like, he not only deceives himself but also makes God to perform a vain show. Such a claim denies the nature of God who does not lie, and thus deserves to be called “Divinity minted or taught in Hell.”[57] In this connection, Whichcote insisted on the necessity of preparing for justification, and affirmed that “the beginnings of Grace are wrought in us, before God actually justifies sinners.”[58]

Tuckney saw Whichcote’s claim that reconciliation is produced from within ourselves (nascitur e nobis) as suspicious and dangerous.[59] Admitting that, as Whichcote maintained, Christ’s work has two aspects—Christ’s work for us and his work in us—Tuckney further argued that what indeed matters is to keep the right order between the two, beyond a mere distinction. In other words, while he recognized both Christ’s work in us and Christ’s work for us, he insisted that the latter must precede the former in terms of logical order. He rejected the notion that sanctification should be made before justification, and emphasized that God’s initiative should govern both the design and the execution of justification.

God, not onlie in his eternall election had before purposed, and by the death of his Son after purchased, our reconciliation: but, even in the execution of that purpose, and application of that purchase, Hee is before us; and is setting out first that happie meeting of our fulle reconciliation.[60] 

Yett in hoc motu God moves first; and so farre as Justification consists in pardon of sinne, itt is verie considerable; whether immediate antecedenter itt hath for its object a sinner, as a sinner, under the guilt and in the state of sinne; though it do not so leave him: and so God properlie justifie the ungodlie.[61]

Thus the ground of justification is not any inherent righteousness in a person. God does not declare the sinner to be righteous on the basis of what occurs within him, but only on account of what is accomplished outside him, that is, the righteousness of Christ. Justification takes place only by the imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness to the believer; it is thus called “relative grace.” This does not imply, however, that this is a fictional declaration, as Bellarmine claimed, or God’s vain show, as Whichcote claimed. God’s imputation of Christ’s righteousness and declaration of justification is the greatest reality.

The Imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us in Justification is not putative, or putatitious, as some of us lisp, and the Papists speak it out.… Indeed Justification is a Relative Grace, and we are wont to say that Relationes sunt minimae Entitatis; but where both Termini and Fundamentum are real, as Chemnitius shewth it to be so here, though Bellarmine laugh at it with scorn, yet a true Believer that feeleth the benefit of it rejoiceth in it with humble thankfulness. There is greatest reality in Gods giving, and in faiths receiving. Christ hath really satisfied for us, and this is really conveyed and applied to us. In this first step (of justification) we are brought to be possessed of Christ, and then sure we are made to inherit substance.[62]

Nothing but Christ’s righteousness is the ground of justification. Therefore we have to possess Christ and obtain his righteousness through imputation in order to be able to stand righteous before God.

Additionally, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness involves both passive obedience, that is, Christ’s suffering and death as satisfaction for God’s wrath, and active obedience, that is, his perfect law-keeping. Tuckney held that the essence of justification consists in two factors: one is “not imputing sin” (non imputando peccatum), and the other is “imputing righteousness” (imputando justitiam).[63] Forgiveness of sin and liberation from its guilt and punishment are great blessings, but they do not exhaust the meaning of justification. Those who are justified are “not only liberated from condemnation and punishment out of the imputation of Christ’s passive obedience, but also acquire the eternal right and life in heaven out of the imputation of his active obedience.”[64] The imputation of Christ’s passive obedience removes divine wrath and punishment, and thereby brings the believer back to Adam’s state of innocence before the fall. The ultimate goal of redemption, however, is not merely to restore and maintain Adam’s pre-fall state at creation, but to receive a higher reward, eternal life. And it is the imputation of Christ’s active obedience that enables the believer to achieve this eschatological reward.

Thus imputation of Christ’s active obedience and its corollary benefit, adoption, should be included in justification. Tuckney understands adoption as a second part of or a positive aspect of justification, rather than an entity distinct from justification. Adoption is similar to justification in several points. Believers are adopted in a relative sense, meaning that they become God’s children “in Christ,” just as they are justified relatively in Christ. That is to say, adoption is basically about a change of status, rather than of inherent nature.[65] As in the case of justification, the believer’s adoption is grounded upon God’s eternal decree (Eph 1:5), accomplished in Christ (Gal 4:4–5), executed through the Spirit (Gal 4:6), effected by faith (John 1:12), and will be completed in the future (Rom 8:23). All these past, present, and future aspects of adoption have Christ at the center: predestination for adoption is made through Christ; the Son of God became incarnate in order that his people may be God’s children; the Holy Spirit is sent as the Spirit of the Son; belief in the name of Christ brings the right to become the sons of God.[66] Such a privilege that the sinner not only is forgiven but even becomes God’s son is the fruit of his union with Christ.

It is worthy of observation that Tuckney rebutts Andreas Osiander’s radical teaching on union with Christ when he discusses the doctrine of justification, which was similar to what Calvin did in Institutes 3.11. Osiander, a Lutheran heretic, called the forensic understanding of justification a doctrine “colder than ice,” and insisted that justification is grounded in “the righteousness of the Christ dwelling in us by faith. God is not indeed so unjust as to regard him as righteous in whom there is really nothing of true righteousness.”[67] A believer is united to Christ’s divine and essential righteousness through faith, and God declares the one who becomes actually righteous by this union to be justified.[68] Such a view not only destroyed the line between Creator and creature by asserting that the ground of justification is the infusion of Christ’s divine essence, but also perverted the understanding of the nature of union with Christ. Tuckney was especially concerned that this heretical teaching had been revived in his day and was favored particularly by a group of fanatics.[69]

Tuckney censured Osiander’s teaching that the essence of divine nature abides in us as a resurgence of the ancient heresy of Manicheanism. Though Scripture speaks in many places of the intimate union between Christ and the believer, it does not posit the possibility of union between divine and human nature in the believer. Such hypostatic union is the exclusive prerogative of Christ, and the believer is far away from it.[70] The nature of the believer’s union with Christ is to be understood in terms of mystical union instead of essential or formal union: “Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are in the saints mystically, through union by faith and effect of grace.”[71] If the divine essence of righteousness is infused into the believer, as Osiander insists, this blurs the ontological distinction between Creator and creature. Yet, union with Christ does not entail any degree of mixture of the human with the divine. Any expectation to partake of the divine nature even in close union with Christ is presumptuous. A believer becomes one with Christ “not by any Partnership of his Essence and substance, but of excellent graces.”[72] In this regard, Tuckney presents Christ’s hypostatic union as the quintessential illustration of this principle: “If Christ’s hypostatical union did not confound the natures and their properties, much less will this mystical union of God and the soul work any commixtion, or transfusion of it into the Godhead.”[73]

Tuckney further maintains that Osiander’s doctrine nullifies God’s economy of redemption. He notes that the sinner’s justification requires satisfaction and passion, which belong to the human nature of Christ, not to his divine essence. That is to say, we are justified on the ground of the satisfaction and passion made by Christ as a human.[74] What is necessary for justification is not the infusion of divine essence, but the fulfillment of the law, which was accomplished by Christ as Mediator.[75] This redemption accomplished by Christ is not distributed in a lump, but in an ordered application. Those who are predestined in God’s election are first called, they believe what Christ has done, and such benefits as remission of sins, justification, and sanctification are applied to them. It was vital for Tuckney to preserve the distinction between diverse aspects and follow the proper order of salvation without merging all of them into Christ’s essential righteousness.[76] Whereas Osiander developed his doctrine of justification to maximize the significance of union with Christ, Tuckney believed that an emphasis on the union does not negate the legitimacy and value of the ordo salutis.

To sum up, Tuckney discussed the doctrine of justification more extensively than any other subject. In his discussion on justification, first, he stressed that justification results from union with Christ. Possession of Christ by faith and thereby obtainment of his righteousness is the foundation of the sinner’s justification. In this vein, Tuckney criticized the papists and Whichcote for arguing that one’s inherent righteousness contributes to justification, thereby intermingling justification and sanctification. Second, Tuckney held the forensic declaration to be the essence of justification, and he maintained that both the passive and the active obedience of Christ are to be imputed to the believer. For him, union with Christ is not incompatible with forensic justification or the imputation of active obedience. Last, against Osiander, Tuckney affirmed that the union with Christ, which causes justification, should be understood in terms of mystical union through faith, not as essential union in which the individual believer is infused with the divine essence of Christ.

IV. Sanctification And Union With Christ

Tuckney’s attention to union with Christ continued in his discussion on sanctification. Union with Christ is the required precondition that makes good works truly good. What should precede ethical behavior is one’s union with Christ. This is because Christ is the foundation of true virtue: “So indeed I desire that Christ (and faith in him) should be laid as the foundation … of all our moral qualifications and performances.… For sine Christo omnis virtus in vitio est [without Christ, every virtue is in vain].”[77] However decent and virtuous pagan philosophers and Socinians may be, their lives are not good in the true sense, since their good works are “abstracted or separated from Christ.”[78] Also, even though one’s endeavor after holiness is imperfect, his good works will be accepted by God as long as he is accepted in Christ.[79] Therefore, it is necessary that “we be Justified by the imputed Righteousness of Christ, and Sanctified by the Spirit of Christ, and that our best Works and Graces be Enlivened and Spiritualized with the Tincture of the Blood of Christ.”[80] In other words, union with Christ is the starting point of sanctification. It is not that those who pursue holiness can be sanctified, but that those who are “Enlivened and Spiritualized with the Tincture of the Blood of Christ” can pursue holiness. The definitive moment of sanctification occurs when one is united to Christ by faith.

In this vein Tuckney holds that justification is more than a mere forensic declaration: “To justify in Scripture is taken not only declaratively, but also effectively, and signifies to constitute righteousness from the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.”[81] When we are justified, we are “not only reckoned [reputamur] as righteous, but also made [efficimur] righteous.” Just as everyone was made unrighteous by Adam’s disobedience in a real sense, those who are justified will be constituted (constituentur) righteous by Christ’s obedience.[82] Of course, Tuckney is well aware that equating justification with sanctification is the official teaching of the Council of Trent.[83] So he immediately adds a comment that this is only the secondary meaning of justification, and points out that it should not be confused with the papal doctrine that denies the forensic nature of justification.[84]

He further clarifies the relationship between justification and sanctification in a nuanced way. According to Tuckney, the extent of sanctification is wide, covering from the beginning of new life through its progressive advance to ultimate completion.[85] Sanctification “signifies not only the first infusion of grace, but its increase and progress until its completion in glory.”[86] An individual is sanctified by the Holy Spirit as soon as he accepts Christ (Rom 15:16). His holiness remains and continues in this life (Rev 22:11) and will be perfected in heaven (2 Cor 7:1; 1 Thess 5:23). Holding to this broad extent of sanctification, Tuckney locates justification between “the initiated sanctification” and the “progressive and complete sanctification.”

Therefore, it is necessary that justification (which requires actual faith, indeed even an act of faith, for its production) be after calling and regeneration (which implants that faith) and thus after inchoate sanctification. But if we look at the advanced and complete sanctification, as far as it indicates the strength and growth of this disposition, it is both an inward and outward working of sanctification and of new obedience; thus justification is entirely prior to this sanctification, while it inserts us into Christ as the, so to speak, root; “Only from him all our fruits are found,” Hos. 12:8, John 15:4. Therefore he in his first calling was made 1. wisdom for us 2. Righteousness for us in justification; and finally 3. He became sanctification and redemption, that is full glorification. 1 Cor. 1:30.[87]

For Tuckney, sanctification is a large term that “includes the whole work of God’s Spirit in us.” Effectual calling, or vocation “is the first beginning of Sanctification … in respect of the first infusion of grace.”[88] In speaking against Osiander he repeats this point when he explains the true nature of holiness within the believer: “We believe that Christ makes us whole and righteous not only by his merit and the imputation to us of his satisfaction, but also by the communication of himself with us, by the infusion of his grace and inherent righteousness, by its beginning, its increase, until finally it grows up and is perfected in glory.”[89] In other words, as soon as one believes Christ, he not only is declared to be just, but also instantly becomes holy. This is why the Corinthian church was said to be “sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor 1:2; 6:11), in spite of the presence of various unethical issues within them.[90] This inchoative sanctification, the alpha point of sanctification, results from union with the resurrected Christ; it occurs simultaneously with effectual calling.[91] In this sense, sanctification is said to precede justification in that its origin is union with Christ, which is prior to justification.

On the other hand, sanctification also follows justification in its advanced aspect. Though the believer is liberated from the guilt and punishment of sin by justification by faith, “the guilty malefactor is not always presently taken out of prison upon his first receiving of his pardon.”[92] So those who are justified must seek to walk worthy of their new status by fighting against various indwelling sins. Tuckney regards this ongoing pursuit of holiness as the genuine meaning of participating in the divine nature. Observing that the statement “you may become partakers of the divine nature” is immediately followed by a modifying phrase “having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire” in 2 Pet 1:4, he affirms that “Christianity in its proper formality is nothing but the imitation of the divine nature, and fully to imitate God and Christ is in the general both to be partakers of it and to walk worthy of it.”[93] The heart of advanced sanctification (sanctificationem promotam) is to conform to Christ. After the believer is united to Christ and inchoatively sanctified, he has to keep on drawing closer to Christ in his lifetime process of sanctification. Thus Christ is the destination of the journey of sanctification, and its fountain and motivation as well.

To summarize, Tuckney maintained that Christ is the source of sanctification, whether definitive or progressive. Christ is not only the believer’s justification, but also his sanctification (1 Cor 1:30). Since union with Christ is foundational in sanctification, Tuckney does not simply present sanctification as preceding justification (as do the Roman Catholics) or following justification (as do the Lutherans). Whereas justification is certainly prior to the progressive aspect of sanctification, it is also posterior to the inchoative or definitive aspect of sanctification. It is interesting to see a structural similarity between Calvin and Tuckney in this regard. Calvin begins Book 3 of the Institutes by proclaiming that union with Christ is central for all redemptive benefits.[94] And then he explains the double benefit of union with Christ in the order of sanctification (chs. 3–10), justification (chs. 11–16), and sanctification (chs. 17–19). This structure was intentional in order to demonstrate that the Protestant teaching of salvation does not neglect good works, and that justification and sanctification simultaneously flow from one source, union with Christ.[95] Likewise, though not identical with Calvin in every detail, Tuckney presents a similar sandwich structure in which justification is placed between definitive sanctification, the inchoative point of union with Christ, and progressive sanctification, the ongoing aspect of union with Christ.

V. Glorification And Union With Christ

Though union and communion with Christ begin and advance in this life through effectual calling, justification, and sanctification, they wait for their final consummation in the state of glorification. Distinguishing three aspects of the knowledge of Christ, “Ex Lege, Ex Evangelio, Ex Vision,” Tuckney affirms, “The second of them is more excellent than the first, and the third than the second.”[96] Those who are already united to Christ by faith will see him face to face when the Lord appears again in power and glory: “That is the perfecting of grace in glory, when God showing himself face to face shall so fill us with his light and life, that then we shall be most fully Deopleni.”[97]

Tuckney presents the final stage of the ordo salutis, glorification, as the state in which the initiated fellowship with Christ is fully manifested.[98] In this state of beatitude, a wedding banquet between Christ and his bride will be held in heaven, in which “no one interrupts mutual acquaintance.”[99] The believer will have complete knowledge, perfect love, and fullest joy with Christ. Tuckney illustrates this with two prototypes in Scripture. The first example is seen in the story of Christ’s transfiguration, in which Moses and Elijah talked with the glorified Christ. Such an intimate relationship between them and Christ was not by virtue of their own heightened spiritual knowledge, but only by the grace of the Holy Spirit, who poured wisdom and recognition into them. Similarly, the Spirit will dissipate all clouds of doubt and weakness, and illuminate the believer’s mind and heart that they will see Christ most clearly.[100] What is more, quoting Chemnitz, Tuckney refers to the creation narrative, in which Eve was made in the image of Adam during his deep sleep, and recognized by him who exclaimed with full admiration, “This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” Likewise, once the believer goes through a sleep of death, he will be renovated through Christ, changed to be the same body with him, and fully recognized by him.[101]

Since glorification is such a blessed state, the believer should not fear death, which is its entrance. In a funeral sermon in memory of Thomas Hill, a fellow Westminster Assembly divine, Tuckney assured the mourners of the victory over death in Christ. He pointed out that the primary reason for the fear of death is the lack of confidence in Christ’s work of redemption.[102] So Tuckney reminded them of the efficacy of Christ’s death and of how the believer’s triumph over sin is advanced gradually. Christ’s suffering and death fully satisfied God’s wrath, thereby eliminating the condemning guilt of sin, which we receive in justification. Christ’s resurrection has broken the power and dominion of sin, and enables us to start and continue the progress of sanctification. While the pursuit of holiness is imperfect in this life, death liberates the believer from a lifetime of struggle against the enslaving power and pollution of sin, thereby uniting him more fully to Christ.[103] As a remedy for the fear of death, Tuckney recommends frequent reflection on the efficacy of Christ and active participation in prayer to enhance the sense of union with Christ: “By constant acquaintance with prayer, we come to more familiar acquaintance with Christ, and so come to see and feel how happy it is to be near him, which cannot but make us the more ready and desirous of getting out of the body, that we may be no longer absent from him.”[104] Furthermore, faith’s role as apprehending and applying Christ is needed at the deathbed more desperately than at any other moment:

And therefore here again, the death of Christ applied by faith, proves a Soveraign remedy; for it is then safe drawing near to God, when our hearts are sprinkled from an evil conscience, Heb. 10.22. and that is by the blood of Christ, Heb. 9:14. grace therefore in a way of daily mortification to be implanted into Christs death, and this sweet fruit amongst others, will spring out of his grave, that what mortifieth sin, will kill the fear of death, which is caused by it.[105]

The idea that death deprives us of everything belonging to this world and separates us from those who are most beloved makes us fearful; yet, those who are united to Christ can now willingly embrace death. Death becomes the moment of gain rather than loss, and of union rather than separation. It is the gateway through which the people of God enter into full union with Christ, not merely by faith but also by sight, and enjoy all heavenly blessings without reservation. So Tuckney agrees with Paul, who professes, “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21), and expects the most glorious state following death: “If Christ be our All in all, then although all things else at Death be taken from us, and we from them, we have lost nothing; no, have gained by it, fullest union with him, and possession of him, which is our greatest gain, because our greatest happiness.”[106]

VI. Conclusion

In response to the criticism that the Westminster divines replaced the Reformers’ emphasis on union with Christ with a more rigid structure of the ordo salutis, Robert Letham argues that “the whole process of salvation is placed under the umbrella of union and communion with Christ” in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and that this is not incompatible with the more logical structure of the ordo salutis in the Confession of Faith.[107] Examining Puritan theologians’ soteriology, Mark Jones also concludes that “union with Christ, not justification by faith, is the chief blessing a Christian receives from God. The believer’s union with Christ enables him to receive all the benefits of Christ’s work, including justification, adoption, and sanctification.”[108] Anthony Tuckney’s understanding of salvation confirms this observation. Tuckney affirmed the priority of union with Christ. No single benefit of salvation takes place apart from union with Christ: “All the parts of this salvation, in the whole progress from first to last, all is in and by Jesus Christ.”[109] Those who are elected in Christ are effectually called to embrace Christ, justified by the whole righteousness of Christ, and sanctified by Christ’s holiness, and will enter into glorification in which union with Christ is ultimately completed. All parts of the ordo salutis originate from the reality of union with Christ.

On the other hand, Tuckney does not emphasize union with Christ at the expense of the ordo salutis. The distinction and order of each redemptive benefit should be maintained. He takes the golden chain of Rom 8:30 seriously: “And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” The application of redemptive benefits should follow the sequence of predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. Forestalling any argument that sanctification is not explicitly mentioned, Tuckney provides a nuanced interpretation that sanctification extends from calling to glorification. The inchoative or definitive sanctification takes place at the moment of effectual calling when a person accepts Christ by faith, and the progressive sanctification follows justification and becomes complete in glorification. Furthermore, the relationship between each ordo is not that of causality. Justification does not cause sanctification, nor does sanctification cause glorification. Union with Christ undergirds all the stages of the ordo salutis, and all the redemptive benefits are distinct-yet-inseparable aspects and manifestations of union with Christ.

This is most prominent in the Westminster Larger Catechism, which was supervised by Tuckney as chairman. On July 2, 1647, “Mr Tuckney made report of the catichisme,” and his report was followed by the Assembly’s resolutions:

Resolved upon the Q: ‘What benefits hath Christ procured by his mediation? A: Christ by his mediation hath procured Redemption with all the benefits of the covenant of grace.’ 

Ordered: ‘How doe we come to be made partakers of the benifits which Christ hath procured? A: we are made pertakers of the benifits which Christ hath procured by the application of them unto us, which is the worke especially of God the Holy Ghost.’ 

Ordered: ‘Q: What Benifitts are the elect made pertakers of by coming unto Christ? A: The elect by comming unto Christ are made partakers of union and communion with him in grace and glory.’ 

Ordered: ‘Q: What is that union which the elect have with Christ? A: The union which the elect have with Christ is the worke of Gods grace, wherby they are spiritually and mistically, yet really and Inseperably, joyned to Christ their head and husband, which is done in their effectuall calling.’[110]

The Assembly documents were the products of communal work and, therefore, any individual person’s role should not be exaggerated. Nevertheless, considering Tuckney’s leading role at the committee that produced the Larger Catechism, it can be surmised that he laid a foundation for the catechism’s distinguished teaching on union with Christ, which is complementary to the logical presentation of the ordo salutis in the Confession.

Notes

1. Geerhardus Vos, “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), 256.
2. Richard B. Gaffin Jr., “Justification and Union with Christ,” in A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes: Essays and Analysis, ed. David W. Hall and Peter A. Lillback (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2008), 248-69; Richard B. Gaffin Jr., “Union with Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reflections,” in Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology, ed. A. T. B. McGowan (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 271-88; Lane G. Tipton, “Union with Christ and Justification,” in Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification, ed. K. Scott Oliphint (Fearn, Ross-shire: Mentor, 2007), 23-49; Mark Garcia, Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008); J. Todd Billings, Union with Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011); J. Todd Billings, “John Calvin: United to God through Christ,” in Partakers of the Divine Nature, ed. Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A. Wittung (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2007), 200-218; J. Todd Billings, “John Calvin’s Soteriology: On the Multifaceted ‘Sum’ of the Gospel,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 11 (2009): 428-47; Cornelis Venema, “Union with Christ, the ‘Twofold Grace of God,’ and the ‘Order of Salvation’ in Calvin’s Theology,” in Calvin for Today, ed. Joel R. Beeke (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2009), 91-114.
3. Richard A. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 212-19; John V. Fesko, Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology, 1517-1700 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 173-206.
4. James B. Torrance, “Strengths and Weaknesses of the Westminster Thoelogy,” in The Westminster Confession in the Church Today, ed. Alasdair I. C. Heron (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1982), 45-53.
5. Thomas F. Torrance, Scottish Theology: From John Knox to John McLeod Campbell (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 133.
6. Ibid., 128.
7. Charles Partee, The Theology of John Calvin (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 167.
8. For further information on Anthony Tuckney’s life and theology, see Youngchun Cho, Anthony Tuckney: Theologian of the Westminster Assembly (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, forthcoming).
9. John R. Bower, The Larger Catechism: A Critical Text and Introduction (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2010), 17.
10. Chad Van Dixhoorn, ed., The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1652 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 4:181, 276, 284, 289, 315, 589, 599.
11. Anthony Tuckney, Thanatoktasia or Death Disarmed And the Grave swallowed up in Victory: A Sermon preached at St. Maries in Cambridge, Decem. 22. 1653. At the publick Funerals of Dr. Hill, Late Master of Trinity College in that University (London: Printed for J. Rothwell, 1654).
12. Anthony Tuckney, Forty Sermons upon Several Occasions, ed. Jonathan Tuckney (London: Printed for Jonathan Robinson and Brabazon Aylmer, 1676), 1-165, 649-98.
13. Ibid., 166-222.
14. Ibid., 502-50.
15. Anthony Tuckney, None But Christ (London: Printed for John Rothwell, 1654), 12.
16. Ibid., 53-126.
17. Tuckney, Forty Sermons, 225.
18. Ibid., 225-26.
19. Anthony Tuckney, Praelectiones theologicae, nec non determinationes quaestionum variorum insignium in Scholis Academicis Cantabrigiensibus habitae; quibus accedunt exercitia pro gradibus capessendis, 2 vols. (Amsterdam: Jonathan Robinson & George Wells, 1679), 1:303-12.
20. Tuckney, None But Christ, 21.
21. Ibid., 10-12.
22. Tuckney, Forty Sermons, 81.
23. Tuckney, None But Christ, 13.
24. Ibid., 14.
25. Anthony Tuckney, A Briefe & Pithy Catechisme as it was delivered in Emmanuel Colledge chapel 1628 per Anthony Tuckney, Emmanuel College Library Special Collections, Cambridge. MS. 3. 1. 13. I am indebted to John Bower’s painstaking work of modernizing the English of this manuscript.
26. Ibid., Question 11.
27. Ibid., Questions 11 and 13.
28. Ibid., Question 13.
29. Ibid., Question 7.
30. Ibid., Questions 9 and 10.
31. Ibid., Question 22.
32. Ibid., Question 23.
33. Ibid., Question 24.
34. Ibid., Question 25.
35. Ibid., Questions 35-37.
36. Ibid., Question 47.
37. Ibid., Question 41.
38. Ibid., Question 39.
39. Tuckney, Praelectiones theologicae, 2:79.
40. Tuckney, “Sermon 17 on 2 Pet. 1:4, ” in Forty Sermons, 229.
41. Tuckney, Briefe & Pithy Catechisme, Question 37.
42. Chad Van Dixhoorn, “Reforming the Reformation: Theological Debate at the Westminster Assembly, 1642-1652” (PhD diss., Cambridge University, 2004). See ch. 5 in particular.
43. Tuckney, Praelectiones theologicae, 1:23.
44. Ibid., 1:22-25.
45. Ibid., 1:60.
46. Tuckney, “Sermon 12 on Philippians 3:6, ” in Forty Sermons, 161-62.
47. Ibid., 164.
48. Tuckney, None But Christ, 24.
49. Ibid., 35.
50. Dogmatic Canons and Decrees (New York: Devin-Adair Co., 1912), 29-30.
51. Robert Bellarmine, De justificatione, qui est de fide justificante, vol. 4 of Opera Omnia (Naples: Joseph Giuliano, 1858), 482.
52. Tuckney, Praelectiones theologicae, 1:25.
53. Ibid., 1:27.
54. Ibid., 1:28-29, 36-38. In the Westminster Assembly, Gataker also delivered a philological analysis of the word “justify” in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English, and concluded that it indicates a judicial verdict instead of actual holiness within a person. See Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers, 2:44.
55. Tuckney, Praelectiones theologicae, 1:30: “… de peccatoris coram Deo justificatione agitur, semper sensu solo forensi, nunquam in sensu formali usurpari, hoc est, non significant hominem prius injustum justitiae habitum infundendo Physice vel moraliter justum efficere, sed in se impium gratis absolvere & propter Christi justitiam a Deo ei imputatam, fide vero apprehensam, sibique applicatam justum censere, pronunciare, atque ex imputatione illa vere constituere. Et, quod hujus consequens est, ut justum per omnia tractare.”
56. Benjamin Whichcote, “Letter 2, ” in The Cambridge Platonists: A Brief Introduction With Eight Letters of Dr. Antony Tuckney and Dr. Benjamin Whichcote, ed. Tod E. Jones (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2005), 78.
57. Ibid., 79.
58. Whichcote, “Letter 4, ” in Cambridge Platonists, 105.
59. Tuckney, “Letter 3, ” in Cambridge Platonists, 91.
60. Ibid., 90.
61. Tuckney, “Letter 5, ” in Cambridge Platonists, 125.
62. Tuckney, “Sermon 13 on Proverbs 8:21, ” in Forty Sermons, 172.
63. Tuckney, Praelectiones theologicae, 1:31.
64. Ibid., 1:34-35: “Non enim solum ex imputatione passivae Christi; obedientiae a culpa & poena liberamur, verum ex imputatione activae ipsius obedientiae jus ad vitam in caelis aeternam acquirimus.”
65. Ibid., 1:56.
66. Ibid., 1:57.
67. Cited from Reinhold Seeberg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1905), 2:369-70.
68. Tuckney, Praelectiones theologicae, 1:304.
69. Ibid., 1:303. On the Reformed side, John Calvin was a representative opponent of Osiander. For Calvin’s critique of Osiander, see John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 3.11.5-12; and Mark Garcia, Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008), 197-252. Timothy Wengert offers a history of Lutheran refutation against Osiander in Defending Faith: Lutheran Responses to Andreas Osiander’s Doctrine of Justification, 1551-1559 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).
70. Tuckney, Praelectiones theologicae, 1:308.
71. Ibid., 1:306.
72. Tuckney, Forty Sermons, 230.
73. Ibid., 226.
74. Tuckney, Praelectiones theologicae, 1:305.
75. Ibid., 1:307.
76. Ibid., 1:309.
77. Tuckney, “Sermon 12 on Philippians 3:6, ” in Forty Sermons, 154.
78. Tuckney, “Sermon 40 on Philippians 1:21, ” in Forty Sermons, 675.
79. Cf. WCF 16.6.
80. Tuckney, “Sermon 40 on Philippians 1:21, ” 675-76.
81. Tuckney, Praelectiones theologicae, 1:33.
82. Ibid.
83. See the Council of Trent, Session 6 “Decree on Justification,” Chapter 7.
84. Tuckney, Praelectiones theologicae, 1:33-34.
85. Ibid., 1:81.
86. Ibid., 1:82.
87. Ibid., 1:82-83.
88. Tuckney, Briefe & Pithy Catechisme, 13.
89. Tuckney, Praelectiones theologicae, 1:306.
90. Ibid.
91. Tuckney says, “In point of Sanctification our dead hearts are raised up to a life of grace, and to seek those things which are above” (Forty Sermons, 5).
92. Tuckney, Thanatoktasia or Death Disarmed, 92.
93. Tuckney, Forty Sermons, 259.
94. Calvin, Institutes, 3.1.1.
95. See Gaffin, “Justification and Union with Christ,” and William Edgar, “Ethics: The Christian Life and Good Works According to Calvin,” in A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes, 248-69, 320-46.
96. Tuckney, “Sermon 1 on Philippians 3:8, ” in Forty Sermons, 5.
97. Tuckney, “Sermon 17 on 2 Peter 1:4, ” in Forty Sermons, 231.
98. Tuckney, Praelectiones theologicae, 2:152.
99. Ibid., 2:154.
100. Ibid.
101. Ibid., 2:155.
102. Tuckney, Death Disarmed, 134.
103. Ibid., 170.
104. Ibid., 157.
105. Ibid., 172.
106. Tuckney, “Sermon 40 on Philippians 1:21, ” in Forty Sermons, 688.
107. Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2009), 111.
108. Joel Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine For Life (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2012), 483.
109. Tuckney, None But Christ, 13.
110. Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers, 4:618-20. These statements correspond to the Larger Catechism 57, 58, 65, and 66.