Woolsey, Andrew Alexander (1988) Unity and continuity in covenantal thought : a study in the reformed tradition to the Westminster Assembly. (Vol. 2.)PhD thesis. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/773/ Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Glasgow Theses Service http://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] UN1 TY AND CONTI 1vux—r -y- IN cc)v-1\r4eizsur.det.L. S TUE) I N 'THE .F2 E FC) IR MET) R A .1D I T1 C).I\T TC) 'THE S -171v11 .14•I Th A S5EM.B Andrew Alexander Woolsey VOLUME TWO A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy September, 1988 1988 Andrew A. Woolsey Scottish History Department University of Glasgow TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME TWO PART THREE THE GENEVAN INFLUENCE (continued) 10. John Calvin: Covenantal Conditions 3 11. : Covenant and Predestination 18 12. : Conclusion 41 13. Theodore Beza and the Covenant 50 PART FOUR POST—REFORMATION DEVELOPMENT 14. The Heidelberg Story: Zacharius Ursinus 114 15. : Casper Olevianus 142 16. The Puritan Stream : Thomas Cartwright and Dudley Fenner 167 17. : William Perkins 190 18. The Scottish Connection: John Knox 238 19. : Robert Rollock and Robert Howie 255 20. Conclusion 291 Abbreviations 308 Bibliography 310 -2-2- CHAPTER TEN John Calvin: Covenantal Conditions Calvin's view of the law in relation to the covenant leads naturally to the question: Was the covenant of grace a mutual, bilateral, conditional covenant, or can the claim be sustained that for Calvin the covenant was purely a unilateral, unconditional notion of testament?' It has already been demonstrated that the basic argument in support of this claim is untenable, that is, that 'Calvin asserted that the law was equivalent to the old testament and the gospel to the new testament'. 2 The passages which gave this impression were those in which Calvin was speaking of the 'bare' law and not the law as given in its fullness. Calvin did not use a strict law/gospel principle of interpretation in relation to the testaments, but rather a letter/spirit principle which was manifest in both.' No one would deny that Calvin considered the covenant as having its source in the free mercy of God: 'It does not spring from either the worthiness or merits of men; it has its cause, and stability, and effect, and completion solely in the grace of God', he said. 4. It was an eternal, unchangeable, and inviolable covenant, void of human initiative in its origin and establishment. But simply because it was a covenant, said Calvin, it had 'two parts. The first was a declaration of gratuitous love.. .the other was an exhortation to the sincere endeavour to cultivate uprightness...as if God had said, "See how kindly I indulge thee: for I do not require integrity from thee simply on account of my authority, which I might Justly do; but whereas I owe thee nothing, I condescend graciously to engage in a mutual covenant". This was the kind of covenant, Calvin went on to explain, that men make with -3- companions.6 Calvin regarded mutual stipulations as essential to a covenant. For example, he said that the name 'covenant' was applied to the prohibition not to take the spoils of Jericho only 'because a mutual stipulation had been made'.7 In his Commentary on Jeremiah he added that the word 'covenant' was only meaningful when the question of the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of the people to God's law was involved, otherwise 'we shall feel surprised that the word covenant is so often mentioned, and it will appear unmeaning to us' .° In the Commentary on Zechariah Calvin said, 'The relation, we know, between God and his people, as to the covenant, is mutual'. 9 This stress on mutuality was highlighted throughout the commentaries and sermons, and was not confined to Old Testament books. In the Commentary on Romans Calvin offered the following definition: 'A covenant is that which is conceived in express and solemn words, and contains a mutual obligation' .10 He developed this idea of mutuality in respect to baptism in the Commentary on I Corinthians. Baptism, like circumcision, was 'a contract of mutual obligations: for as the Lord by that symbol receives us into his household, and introduces us among his people, so we pledge our fidelity to him, that we will never afterwards have any other spiritual Lord. Hence as it is on God's part a covenant of grace that he contracts with us, in which he promises forgiveness and a new life, so on our part it is an oath of spiritual warfare, in which we promise perpetual subjection to hine.11 The same emphasis is found in the Institutes: 'In all covenants of his mercy the Lord requires of his servants in return uprightness and sanctity of life'.12 Those with whom the Lord kept covenant were those who loved him, and 'who have undertaken his covenant', because the promises of the covenant 'declare that there is recompense -4-- ready for you if you do what they enjoin'.' s The expectation of eternal life through 'Christ as the pledge of their covenant...must have been experienced upon the hearts of all who truly consented to his covenant . ..". The covenant sign in baptism signified the 'anagogic relationship' between God and his people. It was not only a token 'by which they were assured of adoption as the people and household of God', but 'they in turn professed to enlist in God's service...and...swear fealty to himi."5 Even when relating the covenant to the eternal election of God, Calvin stressed that 'the children of Jacob were now under extraordinary obligation, having been received into that dignity . 15 And that obligation was manifest in those 'who embraced the Lord's covenant with their whole hearts and minds'," and 'keep the law of the covenant, that is, obey the Word', rather than merely boast in the name of the covenant.'e Clearly then, as far as God was concerned the covenant was given in gratuitous, unconditional promises which he pledged to uphold and fulfil. As far as men were concerned there was an equally clear responsibility 'to embrace' and to 'keep the law of the covenant'. In one remarkable passage, Calvin packed together all these ideas concerning the mutuality of the covenant: 'We must now consider how the covenant is rightly kept; namely when the word precedes, and we embrace the sign as a testimony and pledge of grace; for as God binds himself to keep the promise he has given to us; so the consent of faith and of obedience is demanded of us'.'s Conversely, it was possible to violate or despise the Lord's covenant. This occured solely 'because the people were to blame for such a violation'. It could not be 'charged against the covenant'. 20 That was because God would always be faithful to his covenant, though men and nations would depart from it, either temporarily or in complete apostacy. 2 ' Those who despised the sign of the - 5 - covenant, either by neglecting its administration or by subsequently treating it with contempt, could make void the promises of the covenant as far as they were concerned. But that would not ultimately affect the fulfilment of God's side, 'For', said Calvin, 'a contrast must be understood between the people's covenant and God's. He had said just before, I will be mindful of my covenant. He now says not of thine. Hence he reconciles what seemed opposites, namely, that he would be mindful of his own agreement, and yet it had been dissipated, broken, and abolished. He shows that it was fixed on his own side, as they say, but vain on the people's side'.22 Covenant-breaking was frequently described by Calvin in terms of violating the law of God 'in which the covenant was sealed up'. This involved the whole service of God, or 'the trust and faithfulness of the divine promises and the trust which ought to be reposed in them 1 . 23 In other words covenant-breaking came about through want of faith and obedience. Forgetfulness of God's works and a spirit of ingratitude towards him for all his goodness were frequently given as the reason for covenant-breaking.24 Again unfaithfulness to the paternal or marital bond that existed between God and his people was described as covenant-breaking. 2S Or it could be a case of outright rebellion and traitorous behaviour against the government of God and his messengers which Calvin described as trampling upon his covenant. 26 Calvin's works are literally strewn with references to breaking the covenant in a variety of ways. It is difficult to see how Calvin could consider the covenant as being mutual and capable of being broken in any way, if the covenant was not in some sense conditional. Specific references to covenantal conditions are to be expected, and such are not lacking. From the divine perspective God bound himself in the covenant to those people whom he had chosen and adopted out of his free mercy to be his own, and whom he had promised -6- to bless.