ListofContributors
ThomasAhnert isProfessorofIntellectualHistoryattheUniversityofEdinburgh.Hehas publishedtwomonographs, ReligionandtheOriginsoftheGermanEnlightenment:Faith andtheReformofLearningintheThoughtofChristianThomasius (2006)and TheMoral CultureoftheScottishEnlightenment,1690–1805 (2014),numerousarticlesandbook chaptersonsubjectsinGermanandBritishhistoryoftheseventeenthandeighteenth centuries,andseveraleditionsandtranslationsofearlymoderntexts.Healsoco-editeda volumeofessayswiththelateSusanManningon Character,Self,andSociabilityinthe ScottishEnlightenment (2011).
DavidBebbington isProfessorofHistoryattheUniversityofStirling,hasseveraltimes servedasVisitingDistinguishedProfessorofHistoryatBaylorUniversity,Texas,andisa FellowoftheRoyalSocietyofEdinburgh.Hispublicationsinclude TheBaptistsinScotland (ed.,1988), EvangelicalisminModernBritain:AHistoryfromthe1730stothe1980s (1989), and VictorianReligiousRevivals:CultureandPietyinLocalandGlobalContexts (2012).His currentresearchonWesleyanMethodismintheVictorianperiodincludesacasestudyof theShetlandIsles.
MichaelBräutigam holdsdegreesintheologyandpsychology.Heisanordainedminister oftheFreeChurchofScotland,andhecurrentlyservesasLecturerinTheology,Church History,andPsychologyatMelbourneSchoolofTheology.Hehaspublishedamonograph ontheChristologyofSwisstheologianAdolfSchlatter(1852–1938),availablebothin English(2015)andGerman(2017).Hiscurrentresearchfocusesontheintegrationof theologyandpsychologywithaparticularemphasisonChristianidentity.
StewartJ.Brown isProfessorofEcclesiasticalHistoryattheUniversityofEdinburgh.He hasresearchinterestsinreligionandtheEuropeanEnlightenment,andreligion,politics, andsocietyinmodernBritain,Ireland,andtheEmpire.Hisbooksinclude Thomas ChalmersandtheGodlyCommonwealthinScotland (1982), WilliamRobertsonandthe ExpansionofEmpire (1997), TheNationalChurchesofEngland,IrelandandScotland, 1801–1846 (2001),and ProvidenceandEmpire:Religion,PoliticsandSocietyintheUnited Kingdom,1815–1914 (2008).HeisaFellowoftheRoyalSocietyofEdinburgh.
IanCampbell isProfessorEmeritusofScottishandVictorianLiteratureintheUniversityof Edinburgh,whereheworkedfrom1964tillretirementin2009.HeremainsaTeaching Fellow,andhashadvisitingappointmentsintheUSA,Canada,Europe,China,andJapan. Oneofthesenioreditorsofthe CarlyleLetters project,hehaspublishedextensivelyon ThomasandJaneWelshCarlyle,onVictorianandmodernScottishliterature,andtaught BibleandLiteraturecourses.
MarkW.Elliott, formerlyProfessorofHistoricalandBiblicalTheologyattheUniversityof StAndrewsatStMary’sCollege,SchoolofDivinity,hasbeensinceFebruary2019Professor
ofDivinityattheUniversityofGlasgow.Glaswegianbybirth,hewasfurthereducatedat Oxford,Aberdeen,andCambridge,wherehewroteaPhDonTheSongofSongsand ChristologyintheEarlyChurch.Hismainfocusistherelationshipbetweenbiblical exegesisandChristiandoctrine,bothancientandmodern,buthasaparticularinterestin Scottishtheologyinitsinternationalcontext.
DavidFergusson isProfessorofDivinityattheUniversityofEdinburgh.AFellowofthe BritishAcademyandaFellowoftheRoyalSocietyofEdinburgh,hehaspublished Faith andItsCritics (2009),basedonhisGlasgowGiffordLectures(2008).Hismostrecentbook is TheProvidenceofGod:APolyphonicApproach (2018).
JamesFoster istheAssistantProfessorofPhilosophyandTheology,anddirectorofthe HonorsProgram,attheUniversityofSiouxFalls.BeforecomingtoSiouxFallshespenta yearonaFulbrightScholarshipattheResearchInstituteofIrishandScottishStudiesatthe UniversityofAberdeen.Heisalsotheeditorofthe JournalofScottishPhilosophy,and directoroftheInstitutefortheStudyofScottishPhilosophy.Heiscurrentlyworkingona bookaboutThomasReid’smoralphilosophy.
PaulHelm isanEmeritusProfessorofKing’sCollege,London,whereheservedasthe ProfessoroftheHistoryandPhilosophyofReligion,1993–2000.Sincethenhetaughtat RegentCollege,Vancouver,Canada.HepreviouslylecturedintheDepartmentofPhilosophy,UniversityofLiverpool(1964–93).Amonghisbooksare EternalGod (1988,second edition2010),and JohnCalvin’sIdeas (2004).
FrancesM.Henderson isaTransitionMinisterintheChurchofScotland,andiscurrently basedinShetland.SheisagraduateinEnglishLanguageandLiteraturefromMagdalen College,Oxford,andlaterinDivinityfromNewCollege,Edinburgh,whereherdoctoral specialismwasBiblicalhermeneutics.ShehasalsoworkedasAssistantPrincipalofNew College,whereshelecturedinSystematicTheology.ShehasservedasViceConvenerofthe TheologicalForumoftheChurchofScotland,andisafrequentcontributortochurch publications.
AndrewR.Holmes isReaderinHistoryintheSchoolofHistory,Anthropology,Philosophy, andPoliticsatQueen’sUniversityBelfast.Heistheauthorof TheShapingofUlster PresbyterianBeliefandPractice,1770–1840 (2006)and TheIrishPresbyterianMind:ConservativeTheology,EvangelicalExperience,andModernCriticism1830–1930 (2018).
AlisonM.Jack isSeniorLecturerinBibleandLiteratureattheUniversityofEdinburghand AssistantPrincipalofNewCollege.Herpublicationsinclude ScottishFictionasGospel Exegesis (2012),and TheProdigalSoninEnglishandAmericanLiterature:FiveHundred YearsofLiteraryHomecomings (2018).
WilliamJohnstone isProfessorEmeritusofHebrew&SemiticLanguagesintheUniversity ofAberdeen.HewasPresidentoftheBritishSocietyforOldTestamentStudyin1990.He organizedandeditedtheproceedingsofconferencesheldinAberdeenin1994and2002to markrespectivelythecentenaryofthedeathofWilliamRobertsonSmithandthebicentenaryofthedeathofAlexanderGeddes.In1997hepublishedatwo-volumecommentary onChroniclesandin2014atwo-volumecommentaryonExodus;in1998hepublisheda
collectionofessaysexploringtheanalogyoftherelationshipbetweenChroniclesandthe DeuteronomisticHistoryinSamuel–KingswiththatbetweenDeuteronomyandtheprecedingbooksofthePentateuch,especiallyExodus.
ColinKidd isWardlawProfessorofModernHistoryattheUniversityofStAndrews. AFellowoftheBritishAcademyandaFellowoftheRoyalSocietyofEdinburgh,heisthe authorof SubvertingScotland’sPast (1993), BritishIdentitiesbeforeNationalism (1999), TheForgingofRaces (2006), UnionandUnionisms (2008),and TheWorldofMrCasaubon (2016).
RaymondMcCluskey isagraduateoftheUniversitiesofGlasgowandOxford.Until retirementin2019,hewasLecturerinSocialStudies(History)intheSchoolofEducation, UniversityofGlasgow.HeisapastConvenerofCounciloftheScottishCatholicHistorical Association,withbroadinterestsinthehistoryoftheScottishCatholiccommunity.Heis co-editor(withProfessorStephenJ.McKinney)of AHistoryofCatholicEducationand SchoolinginScotland (2019).
FinlayA.J.Macdonald wasChurchofScotlandministeratMenstrie,Clackmannanshire (1971–7)andGlasgow:Jordanhill(1977–96)andPrincipalClerkoftheGeneralAssembly (1996–2010).HewasappointedModeratoroftheGeneralAssembly(2002–3)anda ChaplaintotheQueeninScotland(2001). Hispublicationsinclude Confidenceina ChangingChurch (2004)and FromReformtoRenewal:Scotland’sKirkCenturybyCentury (2017).
TomMcInally isanHonoraryResearchFellowattheResearchInstituteforIrishand ScottishStudiesattheUniversityofAberdeen.HisdoctoralresearchwasontheScots Collegesabroadandthelivesoftheiralumniintheearlymodernperiodoutofwhicharose hismonographs, TheSixthScottishUniversity:TheScotsCollegesAbroad1575–1799 (2012) and ASaltireintheGermanLands (2017).Bothbooksarehistoriesofinstitutionsbuthis primaryinterestandthefocusforhiscontinuingresearchisontheindividualswhoranthe Scottishmonasteriesandcollegesandtheirstudents.
JohnR.McIntosh isProfessorofChurchHistoryatEdinburghTheologicalSeminary (formerlytheFreeChurchCollege).Previoustothisappointmentin2005,hewasaFree ChurchministerinLochgilphead(Argyll),andPooleweandAultbea(WesterRoss).Hehas published ChurchandTheologyinEnlightenmentScotland:ThePopularParty,1740–1800 (1998)andisatpresentworkingonahistoryoftheFreeChurchofScotland,1843–1900.
EricG.McKimmon isaChurchofScotlandminister.Heisadoctoralgraduateof EdinburghUniversity(2012)withthethesis: ‘JohnOman:Orkney’sTheologian: AContextualStudyofJohnOman’sTheologywithReferencetoPersonalFreedomasthe UnifyingPrinciple’.Hecontributedto JohnOman:NewPerspectives (2012)andhewrote onJohnCairnsin ScottishHistorySociety:Records (2014).Heisaregularcontributorof homileticalliteraturetothe ExpositoryTimes
DonaldMacleod (MA,GlasgowUniversity;DDWestminsterTheologicalSeminary) servedasMinisterofKilmallieFreeChurch(Inverness-shire)from1964to1970,andas MinisterofPartickHighlandFreeChurch(Glasgow)from1970to1978.HewasProfessor
ofSystematicTheologyattheFreeChurchofScotlandCollege(nowEdinburghTheological Seminary)1978–2010.Hispublicationsinclude AFaithtoLiveBy (2016), JesusisLord (2000), ThePersonofChrist (1998),and ChristCrucified (2014).
AnneMacleodHill completedherPhDintheSchoolofCelticandScottishStudiesatthe UniversityofEdinburghin2016.ShewasawardedtheJohannKasparZeussPrize2017,by SocietasCeltologicaEuropaeaforherthesis, ‘ThePelicanintheWilderness:Symbolismand AllegoryinWomen’sEvangelicalSongsoftheGàidhealtachd’.HerresearchintoGaelic spiritualpoetryandsongisongoing,focusingonthecollection,literaryanalysis,and contextualizationofwomen’ssongsagainsttheirtheologicalandhistoricalbackground.
ChristianMaurer isSNSF–ProfessorattheDepartmentofPhilosophyinLausanneUniversity(Switzerland).Maurerisaspecialistofseventeenth-andeighteenth-centuryBritish moralphilosophyandtheology.Heistheauthorof Self-love,EgoismandtheSelfish Hypothesis:KeyDebatesfromEighteenth-CenturyBritishMoralPhilosophy (2019),and hehaspublishedwidelyonthepassions,onArchibaldCampbellandFrancisHutcheson, onthereceptionofStoicism,onseventeenth-centuryScottishmoralphilosophy,andon toleranceregardingreligion.
AndrewPurves istheJeanandNancyDavisProfessorEmeritusofHistoricalTheology, PittsburghTheologicalSeminary.Heisnowretired,livinginLeland,NC,wherehereads theologyforfunandwalksregularlyonthebeach.
BryanD.Spinks isBishopF.PercyGoddardProfessorofLiturgicalStudiesandPastoral TheologyatYaleInstituteofSacredMusicandYaleDivinitySchool.Heisaformer presidentoftheSocietyforOrientalLiturgy,formerco-editorofthe ScottishJournalof Theology,aformermemberandconsultanttotheChurchofEnglandLiturgicalCommission,presidentemeritusoftheChurchServiceSocietyoftheChurchofScotland,anda fellowoftheRoyalHistoricalSocietyandofChurchillCollege,Cambridge.Apriestinthe ChurchofEngland,hismostrecentbooksare DoThisinRemembranceofMe:The EucharistfromtheEarlyChurchtothePresentDay (2013)and TheRiseandFallof theIncomparableLiturgy:TheBookofCommonPrayer1559–1906 (2017).Heiscurrently workingonabookonScottishPresbyterianworship.
WilliamStorrar isDirectoroftheCenterofTheologicalInquiryinPrinceton,USA.After parishministryintheChurchofScotland,hetaughtpracticaltheologyattheuniversitiesof Aberdeen,Glasgow,andEdinburgh,whereheheldtheChairofChristianEthicsand PracticalTheologyandinitiatedtheGlobalNetworkforPublicTheology.Hispublications onchurchandsocietyincludeeditedvolumeson GodandSociety:DoingSocialTheologyin ScotlandToday (2003), PublicTheologyforthe21stCentury (2004), AWorldforAll?Global CivilSocietyinPoliticalTheoryandTrinitarianTheology (2011),and YoursthePower: Faith-BasedOrganizingintheUSA (2013).
RowanStrong isProfessorofChurchHistoryatMurdochUniversity,Perth,Australia.He haswrittenanumberofbooksandarticlesonScottishEpiscopalianismintheeighteenth andnineteenthcenturies.Mostrecently,hewastheGeneralEditorof TheOxfordHistoryof Anglicanism (2017–18)andeditoroftheVolumeIIIinthatseriesonthenineteenth
century.Hislatestbookis VictorianChristianity&EmigrantVoyagestoBritishColonies c.1840–c.1914 (2017).
IainWhyte hasbeenaChurchofScotlandparishministerandChaplaintotheUniversities ofStAndrewsandEdinburgh.In2005hecompletedaPhDatEdinburghUniversitywhere heispresentlyanHonoraryAssociateintheSchoolofClassics,History,andArchaeology. Hispublicationsinclude ScotlandandtheAbolitionofBlackSlavery1756–1848 (2006), ZacharyMacaulay:TheSteadfastScotintheBritishAnti-SlaveryMovement (2011),and ‘SendBacktheMoney’:TheFreeChurchofScotlandandAmericanSlavery (2012).
JonathanYeager isUCFoundationAssociateProfessorandGerryProfessorofReligionat theUniversityofTennesseeatChattanooga.Hisresearchinterestisineighteenth-century BritishandAmericanreligioushistoryandthought,thehistoryofevangelicalism,andthe historyofthebook.Hispublicationsinclude EnlightenedEvangelicalism:TheLifeand ThoughtofJohnErskine (2011), EarlyEvangelicalism:AReader (2013),and Jonathan EdwardsandTransatlanticPrintCulture (2016).Heiscurrentlyediting TheOxford HandbookofEarlyEvangelicalism andco-editing UnderstandingandTeachingReligion inAmericanHistory.
TheSignificanceoftheWestminster Confession
DonaldMacleod
ThecompilersoftheScotsConfessionfamouslydisclaimedinfallibility,protesting thatifanyonefoundintheirdraftanything ‘repugnanttoGod’sholyword’ they shouldinformtheminwriting.TheWestminsterConfessioncontainsnosuch protest,butthisdoesnotmeanthatitsawitselfasanunquestionablestandard.Its companiondocument,theShorterCatechism(Answer2),describestheScriptures asnotonlythe ‘ supreme ’ ruleoffaithandlife,butasthe ‘only’ rule.The Confessionitselfcategoricallyaffirmsboththe ‘entireperfection’ ofScripture andits finalityasthesupremejudgeofallcouncilsandofallpurelyhuman compositions(I:10).
InthetwocenturiesfollowingitsadoptionbytheChurchofScotlandthese positionswentvirtuallyunchallenged.ThedoctrineoftheinspirationofScripture receivedlittleattention,andthefactofitsbeingofauthenticallyhuman,aswellas ofdivine,authorship,evenless.Therewas,however,atleastoneexception:the Secessiontheologian,JohnDick(1764–1833).Dickwasa firmbelieverinthe plenaryinspirationofScripture,buthealsorecognizedthatingivingtheScripturesGodaccommodatedhimselftothecharacterandgeniusofthepersons employed,andevenarguedthatthereweredifferentdegreesofinspiration: superintendence,elevation,andsuggestion.Hewasaware,too,oftheissuesraised byvariantreadingsintheHebrewandGreekmanuscripts,butwasuntroubledby them,asweretheWestminsterdivinesthemselves(Dick1838:vol.1,92–226).
Itisnotable,however,thatwhiletheConfessioninsiststhatonlytheOTin HebrewandtheNTinGreekareauthentic,itdoesnot,likemoderninerrantists, focusontheautographs.NotonlyweretheScriptures ‘immediatelyinspired’ at thepointoforigin(I:8):theywerealso ‘keptpure’ duringtheprocessoftransmission,andthusitwasnotsomelostoriginals,buttheHebrewandGreek Scripturesaswecurrentlyhavethem,thataretobereceivedasthewordof God.Atthesametime,thebeliefinthe ‘immediate’ inspirationoftheoriginals stimulatedthesearchforever-closerapproximationtotheautographs,and theologianssuchasThomasChalmersandWilliamCunninghamwarmlywelcomedthelaboursofthetextualcritics,Griesbach,Lachmann,andTischendorf (Needham1991:1–32).
Donald Macleod, TheSignificanceoftheWestminsterConfessionIn: TheHistoryofScottish Theology,VolumeII. Edited by: David Fergusson and Mark W. Elliott, Oxford University Press (2019). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198759348.003.0001
ThiscommitmenttoScriptureasboththesourceandthenormoftheologywas, ofcourse,nothingnew,anditishardlysurprisingthatthekeyfeaturesof WestminstertheologywerealreadywellestablishedintheScottishReformed traditionbeforetheadoptionoftheConfessionin1647.Indeed,mostofitwas alreadythepossessionofthechurchuniversal.OntheTrinityandonChristology WestminstersimplyendorsedNicaeaandChalcedon;onOriginalSinitsetforth theanti-PelagianismofAugustine;andontheAtonementitfollowedthebroad outlineofthedoctrineofVicariousSatisfactionwhichthewholeWesternchurch hadderivedfromAnselm.Muchoftherestwasthecommoncreedofallthe churchesoftheReformation.
Butthemoredistinctivedoctrinesof ‘WestminsterCalvinism’ hadalsobeen adoptedbyScottishtheologybefore1647.Forexample,thoughWestminsterwas theonlyReformationconfessiontoadoptaFederalframework,itwasalready firmlyembeddedinthethinkingofScottishtheologians.Asearlyas1597Robert Rollockhadlaiddowninhis TractatusDeVocationeEfficaci that, ‘Godspeaks nothingtomanwithoutthecovenant’,andhehadthengoneontobeamongthe firsttospeakoftheCovenantofWorks.Inhis SermonsontheSacrament, preachedinStGilesin1589,RobertBrucehadalreadydescribedtheLord’ s SupperasaholysealannexedtotheCovenantofGrace;in1638,inaspeech beforetheGeneralAssembly,DavidDicksonhadgivenacomprehensiveoutline oftheCovenantofRedemption;andSamuelRutherford’ s TrialandTriumphof Faith,incorporatingcarefultreatmentsofboththeCovenantofRedemptionand theCovenantofGrace,waspublishedin1645,whentheWestminsterAssembly hadscarcelybegunitsworkontheConfession.
NorwastheConfessionresponsibleforintroducingthedoctrineofLimited AtonementtoScottishtheology.It wasalreadypresentinDicksonand Rutherford,while,ontheotherhand,thereisroomfordebatewhetheritis presentintheConfessionatall.TheAssemblycontainedavocalgroupof HypotheticalUniversalists,andtheirin fl uenceisclearlyapparentinthe fi nal deliverancesonthissubject.LaterScotti shHypotheticalUniversalistssuchas JamesFraserandJohnBrownIIIwerecertainlyabletoargue,plausibly,that theirpositionwasnotinconsistentwiththeConfession;evenifthedoctrineof LimitedAtonementisthere,asitprobablyis(III:6,VIII:8),ittakesatrainedeye to fi ndit.Therealquestioniswhetherapronouncementonthisissueshould featureinacreedatall,buttheAnglicanArticles(XXXI)hadsetaprecedent, albeittheycamedownontheoppositeside.
DidtheConfessionintroduceanunwelcomestrandof ‘BezanScholasticism’ intoScottishtheology?TemptingasitistoseeBezathroughtheeyesofJohn Cameron,theself-styled ‘ scourge ’ ofBeza,thetemptationshouldberesisted.John KnoxandAndrewMelvillealreadysharedacommontheologicaloutlookwith Beza.WhileitistruethatRutherfordadoptedBeza’sunambiguoussupralapsarianism,theConfessiondidnotendorseit.Besides,asisincreasinglyrecognized,
scholasticismrefersnottothecontentofatheologicalsystem,buttothemethod ofdeliverywhichtheologyadoptswhenitmovesfromthepulpittotheacademy. Thesameindividual Rutherford,forexample couldbeascholasticintheone andapassionateevangelistintheother.Ifby ‘scholastic’ wemeantheuseof Aristotelianrhetoric,definitions,anddistinctions,Calvinbynomeansavoided them.True,MelvillemadeithisbusinesstointroduceRamustohisstudents,but hestillinsistedthattheybefamiliarwith ‘thePhilosopher’;andtheConfession’ s systematicorder,precision,anduseofsuchdistinctionsasthatbetweennecessity, freedom,andcontingency(V:2),areallperfectlyconsistentwiththehumanist visionwhichMelvillehadintroducedtoScotlandseventyyearspreviously (Holloway2011:155–249).
ThetruesignificanceoftheConfessionwasnotthatitintroducednewstreams intoScottishtheology,butthatitprotectedtheconsensuswhichhaddevelopedin theReformedcommunityinthehundredyearsafterCalvin,Bucer,Vermigli,and Perkins.Fromthispointofview,whatwascruciallyimportantwasnotsomuch thecontentsoftheConfessionastheultimateFormulaofSubscription.Whenit originallyapprovedtheConfessionin1647,theGeneralAssemblycontenteditself withaffirmingthatithadfoundit ‘mostagreeabletothewordofGod,andin nothingcontrarytothereceiveddoctrine,worship,disciplineandgovernmentof thisKirk’.In1711,however,afteraseriesofmodi fications,anewFormulawas adopted,requiringallordinandstoaffirmtheirsincerepersonalbeliefin ‘the wholedoctrine’ oftheConfession.ThisFormuladefinedthesignificanceofthe Confessionforthenext250yearsandtherewasoneclearresult:itgaveScottish Christianityastrikingdegreeoftheologicalconsensus.Theseweredoctrineson whichallwereagreed everypulpit,withvaryingdegreesofemphasis,would preachthem,andnonewouldcontradictthem.
Suchadegreeofmandatoryunanimitycouldberegardedasdisturbing.It shouldbeborneinmind,however,thatsuchunanimitywasimposedonlyonthe Kirk’soffice-bearers,notonordinarymembers.Moreover,itmaybearguedthat thechurchhasthesamerightasanyvoluntarysocietytoensurethatitsofficers stay ‘ on-message ’.LaterScottishtheologianswereawareofthedangersofatooextensivecreed.Forexample,someregardedthe FormulaConsensusHelvetica (1675)astoominuteanddetailedtobeimposedasadoctrinalstandard.Some evenhintedthatCalvinhimselfwouldhavescrupledtosubscribetosomeofthe deliverancesofhisseventeenth-centurysuccessors.
IndefenceoftheWestminsterConfession,however,itmaybesaidthatthe unanimityfocusesondoctrinescoveredbytheprinciple, Quodsemper,quod ubique,quodabomnibus,whileatthesametimeunderliningtheharmony betweenScottishProtestantismandtheReformedchurchesofthecontinent. Thisisnottosaythatsomeretrenchmentmightnothavebeenappropriate,but thesteeritgavetotheidealofagreementonfundamentalsmaybethesupreme significanceoftheConfession.True,theconsensuswassometimesachievedbya
studiedambiguity,butitwasaconsensusthatcouldbesharedevenbymenlike RobertLeightonandHenryScougal,despitetheirpragmaticattitudetowards Episcopacy.Itispreciselytheunlikelihoodofachievinganysortofconsensus todaythatrendersitimpossibleeithertoreplaceorrevisetheConfession.
ButdoestheConfession,especiallyinthelightofthe1711Formula,notreflect anirreversibleandimmobileorthodoxy,precludinganyaccommodationof clearerlight,andrulingoutallfurtherrevision,debate,andprogress?Champions oftheConfessionwouldcertainlyhavecontendedthatitcontainedthetruth,and nothingbutthetruth.Few,however,wouldhaveclaimedthatitcontainedthe wholetruth.Therewasroomfordevelopment,justastherewaswithinpostTridentineCatholicism.InthisrespecttheWestminsterConfessionwasinno differentcasefromtheEcumenicalCreeds.Nicaeahadlaiddownboundaries, butithadnotstifleddiscussion,andeventuallyitledtoChalcedon.While Westminsterwascontenttoendorsethedoctrinesoftheseancientcreeds,this didnotdeterScottishtheologians,evenunderthe1711Formula,fromcontinuing toexploresuchChristologicalthemesastheeternalsonship,thetemptabilityof Jesus,theimportofhis ‘obedienceandsacrifice ’,andthemeaningof kenosis. TherewasalsoroomforfurtherdevelopmentofkeythemeswithintheConfessionitself,includingitsFederalism.Westminster’sunderstandingofthecovenantsistentativeandunclear,butoverallitadheredtoatwo-covenant arrangement,theCovenantofWorksandtheCovenantofGrace.Thiswasa significant,ifsilent,divergencefromthepositionofmenlikeDicksonand Rutherford,whohadespousedathree-covenantframework,distinguishing betweentheCovenantofRedemptionbetweentheFatherandtheSononthe onehand,andtheCovenantofGracebetweenGodandthebelieverontheother. However,theauthorityoftheConfessionwasnotsuf ficienttodislodgethe CovenantofRedemptionfromitspositioninScottishtheology.Instead,the three-covenantframeworkwasreiteratedwithfreshclarityinthe SumofSaving Knowledge,composedaround1650,andthenregularlyboundtogetherwiththe ConfessioninprintedcopiesoftheWestminsterStandards.
CometheeighteenthcenturyThomasBostonandEbenezerErskinerejected thethree-covenantframework,evenarguingthatitcontravenedtheStandardsof theChurch.TheyrestrictedtheCovenantofGracetotheeternalcovenant betweentheFatherandtheSon(representingtheelect),anddeniedthatthere wasasecondcovenantbetweenGodandthebelievingsinner.Astheysawit,such acovenant,establishedthroughfaith,introducedadangerouselementofconditionalityintotheadministrationofgraceandthuscompromisedthe ‘absolute freeness’ ofthegospel,whichwasfullyprotectedbytheoneeternalcovenant betweentheFatherandtheSon:acovenantinwhichChristbecametheSuretyfor hispeople’sdebts,theTrusteewithwhomalltheblessingsofthecovenantwere lodged,andtheTestatorwhobequeathedhisinheritancetotheelect.What remainedanopenquestionwaswhetherelectionwaspriortothecovenant,or
partofit.Noclearanswerwasgiven,buttherewasageneralconcerntosafeguard thedivinesovereignty,eventotheextentofarguingthatChristcouldnotbethe causeofelection.Nor,accordingto Fisher’sCatechism (1753),wasthereprecedence.Inoneandthesamedecree,theloveofGodalightedonboththeHeadand themembers.¹
BehindthisrejectionofaseparateCovenantofGracelayareluctancetospeak offaithasa ‘condition ’.Rutherford,arguingagainstAntinomianism,hadinsisted onsuchlanguage.Bostonetal.,confrontedbyNeonomianism,disownedit:faith received,butdidnotgive.Thisshrinkingfromthemerestwhiffoflegalismplaces Scotland’sFederalTheologyatthefurthestpossibleremovefromtheideaofthe covenantasalegalcontractnegotiatedbetweentwoequalparties.Indeed,such wastheaversionoftheMarrowmentoanyhintofconditionalitythattheyeven rejectedthecomparisonofthecovenanttoamarriagecontract(asdistinctfroma commercialone).Theelementof ‘consent’,theyfeared,wouldintroducetoo much ‘ofone’sowndoing’ .
Thefactthattherewasroomforsuchdisagreementsmakesclearthatthough theConfessionsetlimitstotheologicalpluralism,itwascarefulnottosetthese limitstootightly.Libertyofopinionwasstillallowedonarangeofsignificant issues.Forexample,theConfessionleavesopenthequestionofMillennialism. Thiscanhardlybeduetothedebatebeingirrelevant.Manyofthesectarieswho swirledaroundseventeenth-centuryLondonwerePremillennialists,whilemostof thePuritanswerePostmillennialists.Everyone,then,hadapositiononthe question,yettheConfessionappearstohavenone,andthisallowedforthe emergenceofasignificantgroupofPremillennialistsintheChurchofScotland inthenineteenthcentury.ThemostprominentofthesewasEdwardIrving,who foundPremillennialismintheScotsConfession,andregardedthisasoneofthe marksofitsexcellence.Irving’stheologydideventuallyprovokecontroversy,but thishadlittletodowithhisPremillennialism nordidhisPremillennialviewsdie withhimself.Theywereadoptedbyotherswho,unlikeIrving,hadnoproblem withtheConfession,andstoodoutinsteadaschampionsofCalvinistorthodoxy. ThemostprominentofthesewerethebrothersAndrewandHoratiusBonar,but aroundthemstoodamuchwidercircle,andtheirviewsdrewavigorousresponse fromDavidBrown,aPostmillennialist.Bothviewsweretolerated,andthereisno signthattheBonars(who,likeBrown,adheredtotheFreeChurchin1843)felt anytensionbetweenPremillennialismandtheConfession.Itwasanissueon which,tosaytheleast,therewasroomforlatitudeofinterpretation.
TheConfessionwasalsolessthandogmaticonthedoctrineoftheimputation ofAdam’ssin.Isitimmediateormediate?TheConfessionassumes,ofcourse,the
¹SeeJamesFisher, TheAssembly’sShorterCatechismExplainedbywayofQuestionandAnswer, 20:7: ‘IsChristthecauseofelection?No;thefreeloveofGodsentChristtoredeemtheelect,and thereforehecouldnotbethecauseofelectinglove,Johniii.16.’
historicityofAdamandEve,anddenialofthiswouldclearlybeinconsistentwith the1711FormulaofSubscription.However,whenitcomestodefiningthe significanceofAdam’ssin(VI:3),theConfessionproceedswithcaution:the guiltofthissinwasimputedtohisposterity,hiscorruptednaturewasconveyed tothem,andtherationaleforthiswasthebiologicalfactthatheandEvewerethe rootofallhumankind.ButReformedOrthodoxyhadalreadybeguntotroubleits soulovertherelationbetweentheguiltandthecorruption.Accordingtoimmediateimputation,guiltisimputedtoAdam’sposteritysimplyonthebasisthat theyarehisposterity,irrespectiveofanyactualsinfulnessontheirpart.Yet mediateimputationstatesthatguiltisimputednotsimplybecauseweare descendantsofAdam,butbecausewearetaintedwiththecorruptioninherited fromhim.
ThislatterviewiscommonlyassociatedwithJoshuadelaPlace,whowas condemnedbythe1645SynodoftheFrenchReformedChurchforallegedly denyingtheimputationofAdam’ssintohisposterity.Herepudiatedthischarge, butwhathedidholdwasthatweshareintheguiltofAdam’ssinonlybecause wehabituallyconsenttoit.Onthisunderstanding,personalcorruptioncomes beforeinheritedguilt.ThereactiontothisbyReformedOrthodoxywasadubious refiningofthedoctrineofimmediateimputationtotheeffectthatournative depravityisthepenalconsequenceofourinheritedguilt.
TheConfessiontakesnonoticeofthisdebate,possiblybecausemembersofthe Assemblywereunawareofit,morelikelybecausetheydidnotthinksuch refinementswereappropriateinabasisofunity.However,viaFrancisTurretin andthe FormulaConsensusHelvetica,theideathatdepravityisthepenalconsequenceofimputedguiltpassedtosuchinfluential figuresasCharlesHodgein AmericaandtoEbenezerErskineandWilliamCunninghaminScotland.Others disownedit,arguingthatitcouldnotclaimsanctionfromeitherScripture,the Confession,orCalvin.InScotland,theologianssuchasRobertDick,John Macpherson,andJohnLaidlawmaintainedadiscreetsilence,thoughMacpherson didinsistthatnoonesufferedthepunishmentduetoaguiltyracewithouthaving personallycommittedoffenceswhichdeservesuchpunishment(seeArmstrong 2004:114–15;Macleod2014).
Thereis,however,oneissue,nowseenasverymuchanopenquestion,which theConfessionseemstoregardasaclosedone:divinepassibility. ‘God,’ declaresthe Confession, ‘iswithoutbody,partsorpassions’ (II:1).Theassertionofdivine incorporealityanddivinesimplicitywillraisenoeyebrows.ButwhatofthestatementthatGodiswithoutpassions?
ThiswordingisnotpeculiartotheWestminsterConfession:itislifteddirectly fromthe firstoftheAnglicanArticles.Butdoesitruleouttheideaofdivine passibility?Itmaybe,forexample,thatwhatisinviewisnotpassionsassuch,but bodilypassions;or,alternatively,whatAugustinecalled ‘amovementofthemind contrarytoreason’.Thelanguagealsocoversotherimportantpointswhichnot
eventhemostardentadvocateofdivinepassibilitywoulddeny,suchasthenotion thatGodcannotsufferpassively,asamerevictim;norishe,likepagandeities, liabletofuriousoutburstsofpassionateanger.
ToinferfromthisstatementthatsubscriberstotheConfessionwereboundto theviewthatGodhasnoemotions,orthatheisnotaffectedbyeventsoutside himself,orthathewasnotmovedbythedeathofhisownSon,wouldbeto removefromScripturekeyelementsofitsrevelationofGod.Ifthecrucifixioncost GodtheFathernothing,theChristianEucharistlosesmuchofitsfocus.Typical Scottishpreacherscertainlygivenoimpressionthattheymoderatedtheirlanguageforfearofbeingaccusedofdenyingdivineimpassibility.SamuelRutherford, referringtotheCross,canevenspeakof ‘Godweeping,Godsobbingunderthe water!’ Itisdevoutlytobehopedthatallchurcheswillleavedivineimpassibilityan openquestion.
IfweweretogaugethesignificanceoftheConfessionbythevolumeofcriticism ithasattracted,ourmindswouldimmediatelyturntoitschapterontheDivine Decree(ChapterIII).Attheheadofthechapter,however,liesastatementthat criesout,notforeitheriraterejectionorstubborndogmatism,butforcareful attentionandfruitfuldevelopment.Whiledivineforeordination,wearetold,does indeedcover ‘whatsoevercomestopass’,itdoessowithoutviolatingthehuman will,oreliminatingeitherlibertyorcontingency(III:1).
Attheheartofthesecaveatsliesadeliberatedistinctionbetweenforeordination anddetermination.Whilethedistinctionmaybeasdifficulttoarticulateasthe Trinitariandistinctionbetween ‘generation’ and ‘procession’,itisnonetheless real.Godforeordainsourhumandecisions,butheordainsthemasfreedecisions. Thisclearlyimpliesthatourindividualchoicesarenotdeterminedbygenetics, childhoodexperiences,environment,instinct,characteroranyotherfactors externalorinternal.Theyareourownpersonalchoices:freechoices.Howfar thiscancomportwithdivineforeordinationhassofarremainedbeyondus.What isimportant,asCunninghampointedout,isthatthereisnothingintheWestminsterConfessionwhichrequiressubscriberstobeDeterminists(1862:508).On thecontrary,theyarefreetobeCalvinisticLibertarians.
EvenmorefascinatingistheConfession’sstatementoncontingency:astatementwhichhastakenonawholenewsignificanceinthelightofHeisenberg’ s UncertaintyPrinciple.Unfortunately,subsequentScottishtheology,including expositionsoftheConfession,refusedtolingerovertheideathatGodhaddecreed thecontingentaswellasthefreeandthenecessary,andrushedon,instead,tothe morecomfortabletopicofpredestination.Itremains,however,thatwhilepiety mayprotestthatthereisnosuchthingaschance,physicsandtheWestminster Confessionbothleaveroomforit,whiletheConfessionaddsthatitisestablished byGod.Thisstillcriesoutforelucidation.
YetanyassessmentofthesignificanceoftheConfessionmusttakeaccountof thefactthatsidebysidewithsuchmetaphysical flightsthereareseveral
statementsofclearpastoralrelevance.Onestrikingexampleoccursinthechapter onJustification(XI:5).Thisrecognizesthatbelievers,oncejustified,canneverfall outofthestateofjustification,butitleavesnoplacefortheviewexpressedby JamesHogg’sjustifiedsinner,RobertWringhim,that ‘ajustifiedpersoncoulddo nowrong ’ (1991:134).Instead,itdeclaresthatthesinsofbelieversbringthem underGod’ s ‘fatherlydispleasure’.Thekeywordhereis ‘fatherly’.Believersareno longerliabletojudicialcondemnation,butasGod’schildrentheyaresubjecttohis house-rules.Althoughhewillneverturnthemout,theywillquickly findthatthey cannotsinwithimpunity.Onthecontrary,theywillincurdivinedispleasure, expressed,verylikely,inchallengingprovidences.Butwhatisparticularlymoving istheparagraph’sdescriptionofthebackslider’sroadtorecovery.Theymust ‘humblethemselves,confesstheirsins,begpardon,andrenewtheirfaithand repentance’.Thisisgrace,butitisnotcheapgrace,anditshowstheConfessionas notonlytheologicallyacute,butpastorallyaware.
ButiftheConfessiondidnotprecludedebateanddevelopment,diditsvery statusnotsilenceanti-Confessionalvoices?Amerefortyyearsafterthepassing ofthe1711Formula,controloftheGeneralAssemblypassedtotheModerates undertheleadershipofPrincipalRobertsonofEdinburghUniversity.Even allowingforthefactthatthelinebetweenModeratesandEvangelicals(otherwise, the ‘PopularParty’)isfarfromclear,therecanbenodoubtthatamongthe ModeratestherewasdeepresentmentoftheConfessionsince,intheoryatleast,a ministercouldbedeposedforcontraventionofanyofitsdoctrines.Ifthisbred resentment,italsobredfear.Theoutcome,accordingtoDrummondandBulloch, wasthattheModeratesfailedtoproduceanytheologyofdistinction: ‘Theywere restrainedbytheWestminsterConfession.Theydidnotholditsdoctrines,but couldnotsaysoinpublic’ (1973:104).
Itwasnotmerelyamatteroffeelingrestrained.Therewasalsoaseriousdegree ofcontempt,asJohnWitherspoonhighlightedinhissatirical EcclesiasticalCharacteristics (1753),declaringit ‘anecessarypartofthecharacterofamoderateman, nevertospeakoftheConfessionofFaithbutwithasneer’.Yetthecontempt producedlittleinclinationtoproposerevisionofeithertheConfessionorthe FormulaofSubscription.LivingastheydidintheshadowoftheJacobiteuprisings,menlikeRobertsonwereopposedtoanyecclesiasticalmovethatmight jeopardize ‘thelatehappysettlement’ of1707.ThatsettlementhadtheConfession atitsheart,andevenhadchurchmenproposedachange,thegovernmentwould nothaveallowedit.
Yet,whatevertherestraintarisingfromfearofbreachingtheConfession,the yearsofModeratedominancewerenotacompleteblankinScotland’stheological history.NotonlydidmensuchasAdamGibwithintheSecession,andJohn ErskinewithintheKirk,continuetoproducetheologyalongConfessionallines, butevenwithintheModeratepartyitselfsomesignificantworkwasbeingdone. Forexample,GeorgeCampbellofMarischalCollege,Aberdeen,publishedan
influential ‘DissertationonMiracles’ (1762).WhilePrincipalHillofStAndrews wasenoughofaModeratetosucceedRobertsonasleaderoftheparty,his Lectures inDivinity weresoimpeccablyConfessionalthatThomasChalmerswashappyto usethemashistextbookatNewCollege.
Butthesewereexceptions.OtherModerateswhocertainlyhadthecapacityto makeasignificantcontributiontotheologychoseadifferentpath.Robertson excelledasahistorian,HughBlairconcentratedonhisdutiesasProfessorof RhetoricandBellesLettresatEdinburghUniversity,JohnHomesoughtcelebrity asaplaywright,andAlexanderCarlylefounditbywritinghis Autobiography.One canonlyspeculatewhetherunderalooserconfessionalregimetheymighthave devotedtheirtalentstotheology.
Suchtheologicaldisengagementcouldnotlast,andbytheearlynineteenth centuryScottishtheologywasbeginningtoforgeawholenewrelationshipwith theWestminsterConfession.Oneoftheprimedriversofchange,however,was notaminister,butalayman,ThomasErskineofLinlathen,alairdofsufficient means,leisure,andlearningtopublishserioustheologicalworks:and,among these,workswhichdeniedthedoctrinesofelectionandlimitedatonement.Asa layman,Erskinecouldnotbeprosecutedforheresy,buteventstookanewturn whenhisviewsweretakenupbyhisfriend,JohnMcLeodCampbell,Ministerof Row(Rhu)inDunbartonshire:atrainofeventswhichendedwithCampbellbeing deposedforheresyin1831.
Therehad,ofcourse,beenheresytrialsbeforetheCampbellcase.Inthe1720s ProfessorJohnSimsonofGlasgowhadcomeundersuspicionofholdingArian views,but,whiletheAssemblyof1729hadsuspendedhim,ithadnotdeposedhim. In1789thetrialofDrWilliamMcGillofAyronachargeofSocinianismhadended inasimilarcompromise.ThetrialoftheMarrowmen(1720–1)hadbeenthetrialof abook,ratherthanofmen’spersonalopinions.Althoughthebookwascondemned andthemenputonnotice,theywerenotdeposed.Takentogether,suchepisodes indicatethat,howevercleartheConfession(andtheFormulaofSubscription), deposingapersonforheresywasnoeasymatterineighteenth-centuryScotland.
TheMcLeodCampbellcasebeganwhensomemembersofhiscongregation presentedaMemorialtothePresbyteryofDumbartoninMarch1830,alleging thathehadbeenpreachingdoctrinescontrarytoScriptureandtheStandardsof theChurch.Thefactthatthecomplaintscamefromthissourceshouldmakeus hesitatebeforeacceptingtheviewthattheRowdoctrineswereawelcomepastoral correctivetotheexcessesofFederalCalvinism.
Campbellfacedtwocharges: first,thathepreacheduniversalatonementand pardonthroughthedeathofChristand,secondly,thathehadpreachedthat assurancewasoftheessenceoffaith.Boththesedoctrines,itwasalleged,were contrarytoConfessionalteaching.
Thetwochargeswerecloselyconnected.EarlyinhisministryatRow,Campbell hadbecomeawarethatlackofassurancewasaseriousproblemamonghis
parishioners,hehadquicklylinkedthistothedoctrineofLimitedAtonement,and hehadformedtheconvictionthatwithoutadoctrineofUniversalRedemptionit wasimpossibleforpeopletosaywithassurance, ‘TheSonofGodlovedmeand gavehimselfforme’.Onthequestionofassurance,Campbellwasonplausible ground.TheConfessioncertainlydidnotruleouttheideathatassurancewasof theessenceoffaith.Yethaditdoneso,itwouldhavebeenin flagrantcontradictionofCalvin,forwhomfaithwascertainty(Bell1985:22–5).Moreover,itwould alsohavebeenincontradictionofitself,sinceitschapteronSavingFaith (ChapterXIV)specificallylaysdownthatfaithiscertainty whateverGodhas revealedinhiswordistrue.TheproblemwasthatintheConfession’schapter headed ‘Assurance’,whatisinviewisnotthisobjectivecertainty,butanindividual’sassuranceofbeing,personally,in ‘thestateofgrace’.Yeteventhisisnot deniedtobeoftheessenceoffaith.TheConfessionsaysonlythatitdoesnot ‘ so ’ belongtotheessenceoffaith,butthatatruebeliever ‘mightwaitlong,andconflict withmanydifficulties,beforehebepartakerofit’ (XVIII:3).Thisclearlyallows thateventhis ‘ reflex ’ assuranceisinsomesenseoftheessenceoffaith,andwhileit wouldbewrongtoquestionsomeone’sdiscipleshipsimplybecausetheydoubt theirownsalvation,itwouldbeequallywrongtonormalizesuchdoubt;a tendencywhichtoooftenblightedScottishreligion,andwhichacarelessreading oftheConfessionmaywellhaveencouraged.
Campbellwasonmuchlesssecuregroundwhenhearguedthathisdoctrineof universalredemptionwasnotinconsistentwiththeConfession.Notthathehad anygreatrespectfortheConfession.Hearguedthatthechargeagainsthimputit aboveScripture,theonlylegitimatecriterionofheresy,andevenwentsofarasto declarethat,comparedtotheconfessionsoftheearlyReformedchurch, ‘thereis anawfulfallingoffintheConfessionwenowhave’.Campbellalsoclaimedthat theConfessionwassilentonthequestionoftheextentofredemption:asilence which,inhisview,wasnottoitscredit,butwhichneverthelessrenderedthe chargeagainsthimirrelevant.Healsoinvokedthemoretechnicalargumentthat theword ‘redemption ’ asusedintheConfession(VIII:6,8)didnotrefertotheact ofexpiationbywhichChristsecuredremissionofsins,buttosalvationinitsmost comprehensivesense.When,therefore,theConfessiondeclaredthatnoneare redeemedbuttheelect,itdidnotmeanthatonlythesinsoftheelectareatoned for.Rather,itmeantthatonlytheelectareeventuallysaved.Campbellcaused furtherconfusionbyspeakingnotonlyofuniversalredemption,butofuniversal pardon.HisdefencewasthathisdoctrinewasnotcontrarytotheConfession.On theverynighttheAssemblyhadpasseditssentence,Campbellwasaskedbya friendwhetherhecould ‘signtheConfessionnow?’ Hisanswerwasunequivocal: ‘No.TheAssemblywasright.OurdoctrineandtheConfessionareincompatible’ (Tuttle1986:53–4).
TwoyearsafteritdeposedCampbell,theGeneralAssemblydecidedthatthe viewsofEdwardIrvingwerealsoincompatiblewiththeConfession.Irving first
cameunderscrutinyin1832,whenhisPresbytery(Annan)receivedacomplaint thathewasallowingtongue-speakingduringpublicworshipinhisLondon congregation.Onceagain,however,thedefencerefrainedfromchallengingthe Confession,andargued,instead,thattherewasnothingintheconstitutionofthe Churchtoforbidtheuseofsuchagift.ThePresbyteryproceeded,nonetheless,to declareIrvingunfittoremainasMinisterofthecongregation.
IrvingstillremainedaministeroftheChurchofScotland,butayearlaterhe facedamoreseriouscharge:holdingahereticalviewon ‘thesinfulnessofour Lord’shumannature’.At firstsight,therelevanceofthischargecanalsobe challenged.IrvingdidnotdenythesinlessnessofChrist.Whathedidpreach wasthatChrist’shumannaturewas ‘fallen’,buthedistinguishedbetween ‘fallenness ’ and ‘sinfulness ’.By ‘fallen’ hemeantthatChrist,likeotherhumanbeings, hadtostruggleagainstthe ‘flesh’,butheremainedsinlessbecausehewasableto subduethe fleshbythepoweroftheHolySpirit.FollowingIrving’sendorsement byBarth(1956:151–9),theideathatChristtook ‘fallen ’ humannatureiswidely accepted;however,tonineteenth-centuryScottishtheology ‘fallen ’ and ‘sinful’ weresynonymous.ForIrvingtoassumethataConfessionally-anchoredKirk couldtakeinitsstridetheideathatJesushadanativepropensitytosinwhich washeldincheckonlybythepoweroftheSpirit,wastoshowremarkablenaïveté.
ByIrving’stime,therewereclearsignsthattheWestminsterConfessionwas alreadylosinggroundamongScottishtheologians.Irvingmightdenythathis theologycontradictedtheConfession,buthe,too,wasscathingoftheConfession asawhole.LikeCampbell,IrvingdeploredthedoctrineofLimitedAtonement. Thisattitudewastypicalofthecircleinwhichbothmenmoved.Thesame AssemblythatdeposedCampbellhadalsowithdrawnfromhisyoungfriend, A.J.Scott,hislicencetopreach:notforanyspecificdoctrinaldeviation,but becausehehadmadeitknownthathewouldnotsubscribetheConfession.Further evidenceofagrowinganti-Confessionalismappearsfromtherashofdepositions whichmarkedthedecadeafter1831(DrummondandBulloch1973:203–5).
WhiletheChurchandherConfessionwereincreasinglyoutofstep,noone calledforanychangeinthewordingoftheConfessionitself,evenwhenitgave risetogenuinedisquiet.OneclearcauseofdisquietwastheConfession’sposition onthepowerofthecivilmagistrate.ChaptersXX:4andXXIII:3clearlysanctioned criminalproceedingsagainstblasphemersandheretics,andwhilethiswasperfectlyintunewiththeattitudesoftheseventeenthcentury,latergenerations rightlysawitasamandateforsuppressingalldissent.Insteadofamendingor deletingtheoffendingparagraphs,theAssociate(Burgher)Synodin1799sanctionedaPreambletotheConfession,disavowingtheprincipleof ‘compulsory measuresinreligion’.In1846theFreeChurchAssemblyadoptedasimilarly indirectapproach,declaringthattheydidnotregardanyportionoftheConfession, ‘whenfairlyinterpreted ’,asfavouringintoleranceorpersecution.Thiswas clearenoughasastatementoftheChurch’sposition,butlessthansatisfactoryas
anexplanationoftheConfession,which, ‘fairlyinterpreted’,meanspreciselythat blasphemersandhereticsarenottobetolerated.Amorehonestpositionwas takenbytheAmericanPresbyterianChurchwhenin1788itreplacedtheoriginal wordingofChapterXXIII:3withthedeclarationthatitisthedutyofthemagistratetoensurethatnooneoffersanyindignity,violence,abuseorinjurytoany otherperson ‘eitheruponpretenceofreligionorofinfidelity’ (Hodge1869:21–3).
InScotland,reluctancetoamendorretrenchtheConfessionpersistedevenas moreandmoreconsciencesprofessedthemselvestroubledbyitsdoctrines.Itwas throughdeclarationsanddisclaimersratherthanthroughmodi ficationsofthe textthattheChurchofferedrelief,andthetendencygatheredmomentumasthe nineteenthcenturydrewtoaclose.TheUnitedPresbyterianChurchpasseda DeclaratoryActin1879allowinglibertyofopiniononsuchpoints ‘inthe Standards’ asdidnotenterintothesubstanceofthefaith,whiletheFreeChurch passedasimilarActin1892(provokingtheformationoftheseparateFree PresbyterianChurch).TheGeneralAssemblyoftheChurchofScotland(which, asanEstablishedChurch,hadtosecuretheconsentofParliament)followedsuit in1910.
ThesedevelopmentsrevolutionizedtherelationshipbetweenScottishtheology andtheWestminsterConfession.Itcontinuedasthedoctrinalstandardofboth theFreeChurchandtheFreePresbyterianChurch,butthemodificationofthe termsofsubscriptionmeantthatinthemajorPresbyterianbody,theChurchof Scotland,theConfessionitselfwasnolongerregardedasthesubstanceofthe faith.Whatexactlythatsubstanceis,wasleftundefined.TheConfessionhad becomeirrelevant.
Leavinguswithanewquestion:WhatisthesignificanceforScottishtheology ofthelossoftheWestminsterConfession?Itmaystillbetoosoontotell.
Bibliography
Armstrong,BrianG.(2004). CalvinismandtheAmyrautHeresy.Eugene,OR:Wipf& Stock.
Barth,Karl(1956). ChurchDogmatics,I/2.Edinburgh:T&TClark. Bell,M.Charles(1985). CalvinandScottishTheology:TheDoctrineofAssurance. Edinburgh:HandselPress. Cunningham,William(1862). TheReformersandtheTheologyoftheReformation Reprint,London:BannerofTruthTrust,1967. Dick,John(1838). LecturesonTheology.Reprint,Stoke-on-Trent:TentmakerPublications,2004.
Drummond,AndrewL.andJamesBulloch(1973). TheScottishChurch1688–1843: TheAgeoftheModerates.Edinburgh:ScottishAcademicPress.
Hodge,A.A.(1869). TheConfessionofFaith:AHandbookofChristianDoctrine ExpoundingtheWestminsterConfession.Reprint,London:BannerofTruthTrust, 1958.
Hogg,James(1824). ThePrivateMemoirsandConfessionsofaJustifiedSinner. Reprint,ed.DavidGroves,Edinburgh:CanongatePress,1991.
Holloway,ErnestR.III(2011). AndrewMelvilleandHumanisminRenaissance Scotland1545–1622.Leiden:Brill.
Macleod,Donald(2014). ‘OriginalSininReformedTheology’,inHansMaduemeand MichaelReeves(eds.), Adam,theFall,andOriginalSin.GrandRapids,MI:Baker, 129–46.
Needham,NicholasR.(1991). TheDoctrineofHolyScriptureintheFreeChurch Fathers.Edinburgh:RutherfordHouse.
Tuttle,GeorgeM.(1986). SoRichASoil:JohnMcLeodCampbellonChristianAtonement.Edinburgh:HandselPress.
