X;«

gggsgggi

Divinity Library

U1231

>H

iffllSllSllillllllli

; .¦¦:.'- -

gSBSa^ppIlp
Bill' ¦
If
grT-Tx-jCjirJaJ.
^S^^p
S^aglxS
-^-^^^.-..VtHl-ijj^g
YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

[¦EXTRACTED FBOM "THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW " FOR
APRIL, 1901.]

THE MAKING OF THE

Westminster Confession,

AND ESPECIALLY OP ITS

Chapter on the Decree of God.

By Benjamin B. Wakfield,
Profesior in Princeton Semmary.

philadelphia :
MacCalla & Company,
1901.
Yale Divinity Library
New Haven, Conn.

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CON
FESSION, AND ESPECIALLY OF ITS CHAP
TER ON THE DECREE OF GOD.
IT is the purpose of this article to give as clear a view as
possible of the process by which the Westminster Confession
was made. In prosecuting this purpose two tasks present them
selves. One concerns the modes of procedure of the Assembly in
framing the Confession ; the other the course of the debates by
which it was beaten out. We shall attempt to give some account
of both matters. The latter offers so wide a field, however, that
we shall be constrained to deal with it by sample — and, for reasons
which will readily suggest themselves at the present juncture, we
shall select the third chapter of the Confession as the sample to .
be dealt with. We shall therefore try first to trace the formal
procedure of the Assembly in framing the whole Confession, and
to obtain some adequate conception of the labor and time that was
expended on it ; and then, taking up the third chapter, we shall
essay to reconstruct as fully as may be a picture of the actual
work of the Assembly in producing it.*
I. — How the Confession was Made.
The amount of time consumed directly on the preparation of
the Confession of Faith was certainly very great. But even this
* The fundamental authority for the study of the work of the Assembly for the
period covered by it is, of course, the volume of its Minutes edited by Drs. A. F.
Mitchell and John Struthers, and published by the Blackwoods in 1874. Alon<*
with this Dr. Mitchell's "Baird Lectures" on The Westminster Assembly : Its
History and, Standards (Second Ed., Philadelphia, 1897), should be consulted.
Next to the Minutes the fullest source of information is Robert Baillie's Letters
and Journals, edited by Mr. David Laing (Edinburgh, 1841). A very painstak
ing study of the whole constructive work of the Assembly has recently been
published by Dr. Wm. A. Sbaw in his Bistory of the English Church during the
Civil Wars and under the Commonwealth, I64O-I66O (2 vols., London and New
York : Longmans, Green & Co., 1900)— a book simply packed with facts. The
present article was unfortunately written before Dr. Shaw's book came into our
hands. But we have carefully compared it with the account he has given (in pages
357-367 of his first volume) and examined the data afresh in the light of his nar
rative—not without profit to ourselves, or, occasionally, correction of details in Dr.
Shaw's narrative. Where our account differs from Dr. Shaw's, therefore, it is to
be understood that the difference is not unintentional.
Reprinted from the April, 1901, number of The Presbyterian and ReformedRevew.

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 227
does not completely represent the pains expended on this task.
To estimate that fairly, there should also be taken into account
the time and care given formally to' other subjects, which yet
necessarily conduced indirectly to the perfecting of the final state
ment of doctrine. Nearly all the labors of the body, from its
coming together on July 1, 1643 till the completion of the
Shorter Catechism on April 12, 1648, may without exaggeration
be said to have had a doctrinal side ; and much time was spent in
direct doctrinal discussion. None of this discussion that was pre
cedent to or contemporary with the formulation of the propositions
incorporated into the Confession was lost labor with respect to it.
There were in particular three or four of the tasks of the Assem
bly, however, which bore so immediately on its preparation for
framing the Confession that they deserve especial mention in this
connection. Among these the first in time to occupy its attention was the
revision of the Thirty-nine Articles to which it was set on first
coming together.* This was the main work of the Assembly
from the 8th of July to the 12th of October, 1643, and it neces
sarily led to a somewhat thorough review, at the very outset of
its labors, of the doctrines of God and the Trinity, the Person and
Work of Christ, the Scriptures and Eule of Faith, Original Sin
and the Freedom of the Will, Justification and Sanctification — -the
main topics on which the first sixteen Articles touch. Light -
foot's Journal contains very little record of the debates that
were held in the course of this revision, j and we should per
haps be in danger of underestimating their reach and thorough
ness, had not some fuller intimation of them been preserved in the
manuscript Minutes and some specimens of their nature in the
published speeches of Dr. Featley. It is evident that very careful
and thoroughgoing work was done, of which the text of the
revised Articles themselves gives but meagre suggestion. All this
told afterward on the formulation of these same topics in the Con
fession of Faith. " The keen and lengthened debates," remarks
Dr. Mitchell, ' ' which occurred in the discussions on these Articles
could not fail to prepare the way for a more summary mode of
procedure in connection with the Confession of Faith. The pro
ceedings then were more summary, or at least more summarily
recorded, just because the previous discussions on the more impor
tant doctrines of the Protestant system, and especially on that of
* See the Ml and very interesting account of this work given by Dr. Mitchell,
Baird Lectures, 150 sq. Cf. Dr. Briggs' article io the Presbyterian Review for
January, 1880.
f He notes the emergence of the matter only on July 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 27, 28,
August 1, 18, October 12.

228 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
Justification by Faith, had been thorough and exhaustive, and
pretty fully recorded."* There does not even lack evidence that
in framing the very language of the Confession, regard was bad
to the minutix of the work done on this former occasion. Now
and again little points of phraseology, for example, are taken over
into the Confessional statements from the revised Articles, f such
as serve to show that the Divines kept their former labors fully in
mind in the prosecution of their later, and were perfecting their
work in full view of all that had previously been done4
Of far less importance, but perhaps worth mentioning in this
connection, was the work done by the Assembly in the spring of
1645, in defining for the House of Commons " the particulars of
that ignorance and scandal for which persons should be excluded
from the sacrament." § On this occasion, also, though in a more
summary manner, the Assembly had occasion, prior to its entrance
on the actual preparation of the Confession, to review in a sys
tematic exhibit all the chief topics of a dogmatic system, j
Many topics which touched on the subjects treated in parallel por
tions of the Confession were also debated in the preparation of the
Form of Government ; and, we may be sure, this was not without
consciousness on the part of the debaters that their investigations
would bear double fruit. We meet, for example, on May 6, 1645,
before any part of the Confession had come before the Assembly,
a note like this : " Debate whether to bring this under the
head of government or a Confession of Faith." And accordingly
the proposition thus debated was in substance actually incorporated
into the subsequently framed Confession. 1" Similarly the long
* Baird Lectures, p. 150. Cf. Shaw, i, 147.
t Thus : Art. I. Old and Revised Arte, and Conf. of Faith : "of one salvation "
(Irish: "of one and the same salvation"). Art. II. Old and Revised Artt. and
Conf. of Faith: "very and eternal God" (Irish: "true and eternal God").
Especially the following: Art. II. Revised Artt. and Conf. of Faith: "And the
manhood" (Old Artt. and Irish omit "the"); Art. X. Revised Artt. and Conf. of
Faith: " or [to] prepare " (Old Artt. and Irish : "and prepare").
I The text of the Westminster revision of the first 15 Articles of the Church of
England may be found in Hall's Harmony of Protestant Confessions ; Neal's His
tory of the Puritans, Appendix No. vii ; Stoughton's History of the Church of the
Commonwealth, Appendix, pp. 228 sq.; but correctly as to the 8th Article only in
E. Tyrrell Green's The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Age of the Reformation
(London, 1896), Appendix iv, pp. 342 sq. Mr. Green marks all the changes made
in the text. For the Preface and revised Article 8, see especially Mitchell and
Struthers, Minutes, pp. 541-2. Cf. Schaff, Greeds of Christendom, i, 651 sq.
I A good account is given by Shaw, History, etc., I, pp. 259-261. Cf. Journals
of Commons, iv, 89 sq., etc., and Minutes of Assembly for March 1, 5, 21, 24, 28
April 2 (4?), 21 (August 14), 1615.
|| For some indication of the nature of these topics see below, p. 234 .
TI Chap, xxiii, \ 3.

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 229
debates on the jus divinum cannot fail to have borne fruit both for
the Government and for such chapters of the Confession as that on
" The Church and Church Censures," then in process of framing.
Finally the labors of the Assembly in preparing its Catechism,
so far as they were carried on before the Confession left its hands.
were of course of use to it in preparing the Confession also. In
some sense, these labors began indeed as early as December, 1643 :
but the matter incorporated into the Catechism does not seem to
have come before the Assembly itself earlier than September 14,
1646, from which date until January 4, 1647, the substance of the
original Catechism was reported as far as that project was prose
cuted by the Assembly.* During this period the Assembly was
in the process of its review of the text of the Confession, and had
reached a portion of it for which the debates upon the Catechism
could afford little or no aid.f The scrutiny of the substance of
doctrine for the Catechism therefore could serve as a help in the
formulation of the Confession only in so far as the members of the
Committee at work on the Catechism were moulding their opinions
by it. In the general Assembly the influence was the other way
about. In fact, Baillie tells us that on the reporting of the first
matter for the Catechism, the Assembly fell on such ' ' rubbes and
long debates " that it was purposely " laid aside till the Confes
sion wes ended, with resolution to have no matter in it but what
wes expressed in the Confession, which should not be debated over
againe in the Catechise. ' ' % The subject is nevertheless worth men
tioning here as indicating afresh how repeatedly the Divines were,
in committee or in full house, led to go over the whole series of
doctrinal statements either prior to or parallel with their work in
formulating the Confession : all of which repeated reviews of the
matter to be placed in the Confession of course were of use in its
formulation for that purpose.
If there ever was a document, therefore, whose contents might
*See especially Mitchell, Baird Lectures, p. 470 sq., but compare Shaw, I, p.
369, note. References may be found in the Minutes on December 2, 1644 ; February
7, 1645 ; May 12, 13, August 1, 4, 5, 19, 20, 22, September 11. Then especially
September 14, 1646, 15, 17, 22, 23, 24, November 27, 30, December 1, 2, 7, 10, 11,
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 28, 31, January, 4 and 14, 1647, on which last day the order was
given to intermit the preparation of the Catechism on which the Assembly had
hitherto been working and to cast the material into two Catechisms. The text of
this "first Catechism," so far as it is recorded in the Minutes, has been put to
gether by Mr. Wm. Carruthers, in his admirable The Shorter Catechism of the
Westminster Assembly of Divines, in facsimile, etc. (London, 1897), pp. 21-26.
f When the first propositions from the Catechism were reported the Assembly
had just passed chap xvii of the Confession (though one or two immediately pre
ceding chapters were not yet passed).
til, 379, July 16, 1646.

230 THE- PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
be expected to exhibit that genius, the essence of which consists,
we are told, in taking pains, it assuredly is the Westminster Con
fession of Faith. And when we read its exquisitely balanced
phrases, and are moved with admiration for the perfection of the
guarding which it gives to its doctrinal propositions on this side
and that, we are reaping the benefit of these repeated reviews
which the Assembly was forced to give the whole matter, perhaps
even more than of the minute scrutiny it lavished on the formu
lation of it on the final occasion of its actual incorporation into the
Confession. And when, after this, and in the light of all the
experience gained by such repeated reviews of the material, first
the Larger Catechism and then the Shorter Catechism were elab
orated, it is not at all strange that a precision of definition was at
tained which has called forth such praises as these documents, and
especially the Shorter Catechism, have received from the most va
ried quarters.
The framing of a new Confession of Faith was a portion of the
task that devolved on the Westminster Assembly through the
provisions of the Solemn League and Covenant, by which an
engagement was entered into for " bringing the Church of God in
the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in
religion, Confession of Faith, form of Church -government, direc
tories for worship and for catechising."* The prosecution of the
work of uniting the two Churches in a common Confession of
course involved the substitution of a new Confession, agreed upon
by both Churches, for those previously in use, whether in Scotland
or in England ; it accordingly rendered the revision of the
* It is with reference to this engagement that the following minute, entered
immediately after the completion of the (Larger) Catechism, October 15, 1647, must
be read : "Upon a motion made by Mr. Rutherford, it was Ordered— That it be
recorded in the Scribes' books, ' The Assembly hath enjoyed the assistance of the
Honble Reverend and learned Commissioners from the Church of Scotland in the
work of the Assembly ;' during all the time of the debating and perfecting of the
4 things mentioned in the Covenant, viz., the Directory for Worship, the Confession
of Faith, Form of Church Government, aud Catechism, some of the Reverend and
learned Divines Commissioners from the Church of Scotland have been present in
and assisting to this Assembly." There is no question here of a farewell to the
Assembly : but of a record of covenanted work completed. Rutherford's leave-
taking was made on November 9 subsequent. The relation of the Scottish Com
missioners to the Assembly and its work is not always fully understood : it is
lucidly explained by Dr. Mitchell in his Baird Lectures, pp. 180-181, note. They
were not members of the Assembly and cast no vote in it : they took part in its
debates only as private persons on its invitation. They were representatives of
the Church of Scotland coordinate as a body with the Assembly as a whole, which
represented the Church of England, and conferring with it as a whole on the com
mon formularies.

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 231
XXXIX Articles, on which the Assembly had been engaged during
the first months of its labors, no longer ad rem. No doubt the
persistency of the Commons in securing the insertion into the
" Ordinance" calling the Assembly of a clause setting forth as
one of the objects in view the procuring of a " nearer agreement
with the Church of Scotland,"* although more particularly refer
ring to the point of " Government," affected in some degree the
whole work of the Assembly and bore fruit even in its revision
of the XXXIX Articles. But the particular instructions given re
garding the revision of these Articles limited the Assembly to ' ' vin
dicating and clearing them from all false calumnies and aspersions,"
and the Assembly itself looked upon this work accordingly as ' ' re
lating only to the Church of England." f When now, on the 25th
September, 1643, the Solemn League and Covenant was taken, the
whole situation was changed. Parliament was now committed to
that policy of uniformity in religion for the whole country for
which the Scots had been unwearyingly pressing ever since their
Peace Commissioners had gone up to London early in 1641, and
the Assembly considered its work on the Articles as entirely set
aside by the subsequent order, as it itself expresses it, ' ' to employ
us in framing a Confession of Faith for the three kingdoms,
according to our Solemn League and Covenant. "J It was only
with great reluctance and with protestations of their insufficiency
that it placed in the hands of the Parliament, when subsequently
required to do so, the Articles so far as they had been revised
by it.§
Nevertheless, the severer task of forming a new Confession of
Faith for the whole kingdom was not at once entered upon. A
still more severe and, in the judgment of all alike, a still more
pressing task required attention first — the framing of a unifying
"Government" for the Churches of the whole kingdom. This
great labor was begun on October 12, 1643, and consumed the ener
gies and time of the Assembly for many months. The first motion
toward undertaking the new Confession was made apparently on
Tuesday morning, August 20, 1644. Sir Archibald Johnston of
Warriston, lately arrived from Scotland, appeared in the Assembly
on August 14, bringing letters from the General Assembly ; and
in presenting them he emphasized ' ' the general desire of all the
* See Shaw, I, 127, note, and of. the Ordinance itself as printed in most Scotch
editions of the Confession of Faith and in Dr. Mitchell's Baird Lectures, p. xiii sq.
+ So it says in its Preface prefixed to the portion of the XXXIX Articles it had
revised when this was sent up to the Commons. See the Preface in Minutes, pp.
541-2. % Preface to XXXIX Articles, as above. Cf. Mitchell, Baird Lectures, p. 185.
§ Mitchell, Baird Lectures, 161.

232 IHE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
nation of Scotland for the hastening of the work on hand ' ' —that
is, the work of completing the uniformity in all its parts in
accordance with the Solemn League and Covenant. In his
response Dr. Burgess added his voice to Warriston's : and " Mr.
Henderson also spake to the same purpose, of forwarding and
hastening our work. Whereupon it was ordered that the Grand
Committee should meet to-morrow."* The report from the Grand
Committee came in on August 20, and contained five resolutions
designed for expediting the work. The second of these proposed
" a committee to join with the Commissions of Scotland to draw
up a confession of faith." No order, however, was as yet come
from Parliament ' ' to enable us to such a thing, ' !f and the propo
sition, therefore, caused some debate ; but it was at last determined
upon, and a committee of nine, consisting of Drs. Temple, Gouge
and Hoyle, Messrs. Gataker, Arrowsmith, Burroughs, Burgess,
Vines and Goodwin, was appointed to take the work in hand.:f
Two weeks later, Lightfoot tells us further, " Dr. Temple, chair
man of the Committee for the drawing up of a Confession of
Faith, desired that that Committee might be augmented. "§ This
* Lightfoot, Ed. Pittman, vol. xiii, 1824, p. 305. Baillie's (ii, 220, 221) account
is as follows : "So soon as my Lord Warriston came up, we resolved on the occa
sion of his instructings, and the letters of our Generall Assemblie, both to ourselves
and to this Assemblie, which he brought, to quicken them a little, who had great
need of spurrs. My Lord Warriston very particularlie declared in the Assemblie
the passionate desires both of our Parliament, Assemblie, armies, and whole people,
of the performance of the Covenanted TJniformitie ; and withall we called for a
meeting of the grand committee of Lords, Commons, Assemblie, and us ; to whom
we gave a paper penned, notablie well, by Mr. Henderson, bearing the great evills
of so long a delay of settling religion, and our earnest desyres that some wayes
might be found out for expedition. This paper my Lord Say took to deliver to the
House of Lords, Mr. Solicitor also for the House of Commons, and a third copy
was given to Mr. Marshall, to be presented to the Assemblie  Also we have
the grand committee to meet on Monday, to find out wayes of expeditione ; and
we have gotten it to be the work of the Assemblie itselfe, to doe no other thing till
they have found out wayes of accellerating ; so by God's help we expect a farr
quicker progress than hitherto."
f Lightfoot, as above, p. 305.
X Lightfoot, Works, xiii, p. 303. The Assembly's own minute runs : "A Com
mittee to join with the Commissioners of the Church of Scotland to prepare matter
for a joint Confession of Faith.
R. neg. 12. R. affirmat. 9 [to be a Committee].
Dr. Gouge, Mr. Burgess,
Mr. Gataker, Mr. Vines,
Mr. Arrowsmith, Mr. Goodwin,
Dr. Temple, Dr. Hoyle,
Mr. Burroughs,
See Minutes, p. lxxxvi.
2 Lightfoot, p. 308. The Assembly's own minute for September 4 runs : "Re
port from the Committee for the Confession of Faith. They desire an addition of
these persons to the said Committee— Ordered— Mr. Palmer, Mr. Newcomen Mr.

or any 5
of them."

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 233
also was done, and there were added the names of Dr. Smith and
Messrs. Palmer, Newcomen, Hoyle, Reynolds, Wilson, Tuckney,
Young, Ley and Sedgewick. Baillie congratulates himself that
thus the preparation of the Confession had been " put in severall
the best hands that are here," and that " the heads of it being
distribute among many able hands, it may in a short time be so
drawn up, as the debates of it may cost little time."*
It was not until the next summer, nevertheless, that any portion
of the Confession came before the Assembly. + In the spring it
seems to have been taken up in earnest, but progress was
still siow4 Baillie informs us under date of April 25, 1645, that
some reports had already been made to the Assembly.§ We hear
of it in the Minutes for the first time, however, on Monday, April
21,|| and then after a fashion that hints of pressure brought on the
Assembly for completing the work. The Scotch Commissioners,
returning on April 9 from their visit to the Assembly of the Kirk
of Scotland, *[ had had presented by the Grand Committee to the
Houses of Parliament and the Assembly of Divines alike a paper
setting out the satisfaction of their Kirk with the parts of the
Uniformity already prepared, and urging that " it is with no less
zeal and earnestness desired and expected by that whole Kirk and
kingdom, that the remanent parts of Uniformity be expedited."**
Herle, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Tuckney, Dr. Smith, Mr. Young, Mr. Ley,
Mr. Sedgwicke be added to the Committee for the Confession of Faith" (p.
lxxxvii). * Letters and Journal, II, pp. 232, 248.
t On December 26, 1644, Baillie tells us why the work on the Confession was
delayed : "If the Directorie and Government were once out of our hands, as a few
days will put them, then we will fall on our great question of Excommunication,
the Catechise, and Confession. There is here matter to hold us long enough, if
the wrangling humour which has predomined in many here did continue 
I think we must either passe the Confession to another season, or, if God will help
ns, the heads of it being distribute among many able hands, it may in a short time
be so drawn up, as the debates of it may cost little time. All this chalking is on
supposition of God's singular assistance, continuing such a disposition in the
Assemblie and Parliament as has appeared this moneth or two bypast. ' ' (II, p. 248. )
% It was not until July that any part of the text got before the Assembly. Baillie
(II, 275), writing apparently early in June (Shaw, I, 190), can still speak of the
Assembly as only "beginning to take the Confession of Faith and Catechise to our
consideration," and on the 29th August (II, 315) says, "We are goeing on lan-
guidlie with the Confession of Faith and Catechisme.''
\ P. 266.
|| References to the Minutes are of course all to the volume published in 1874 by
Drs. Mitchell and Struthers. References are equally easily verifiable whether made
by pages, dates, or numbers of sessions— and therefore we shall not burden the
margin with details.
f Minutes, pp. 77. Cf., pp. 28 sq.
** This paper was brought into the Assembly on April 14 : it is given by Dr.
Mitchell from the Journals of the House of Lords, vol. vii, pp. 317, 318, on pp. 80-
81, note, of the Minutes.

234 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
Stress was especially laid in this paper on the completion of the
Form of Government ; but when the paper came before the Com
mons (on April 14) it found that body engaged on matters of doc
trine,* and its immediate fruit was accordingly an action to hasten
on the preparation of the " Confession of Faith." A paper had
been sent up from the Divines to both Houses on March 6 looking
to the " preserving the sacraments pure." and both Houses had
taken up the matter at once. The debate in the Commons from
March 25 took the form of determining the particulars of ignorance
and scandal which should exclude from the Lord's Supper. Several
communications were passed between the House, sitting in com
mittee, and the Divines by means of which it was determined
what should be defined as " a competent measure of understand
ing — concerning God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost," " con
cerning the state of man by the creation, and by his fall," " the
redemption of Jesus Christ, etc.," " the ways and means to apply
Christ, etc.," " the nature and necessity of faith, etc.," " repent
ance, etc.," " the nature and use of the Sacraments, etc.," " the
condition of man after this life, etc."f The report of the Grand
Committee embodying these findings wa3 made to the Commons
on the 17th "of April, and on the same day a Committee was
appointed to draft an ordinance in the terms of the findings. :(:
Simultaneously the House voted to desire the Assembly with all
convenient speed to resolve upon a Confession of Faith for the
Church of England and present it to the nouse.§ In this we may
doubtless see the combined effects of the pressure brought to bear
on the House by the letter irom Scotland and its own sense of
need arising from its labors in defining censurable ignorance.
There are entries in the Minutes of the Assembly for April 18
which may be taken as indicating the reception of this order by
that body. || In this case it would seem that Messrs. Seaman,
Tuckney, Burroughs, Young, Whitaker, Rayner, Vines and Dela-
march were appointed " to consider of this order," and were
instructed to meet that afternoon and report at the next meeting.
In any event the order was already in process of being obeyed at
this next meeting, Monday, April 21. Apparently the Com-
* See a full account of the work of the Houses in this matter in Shaw's History
of the English Church during the Civil Wars and under the Commonwealth, I, pp.
257 sq.
fShaw, as above, I, pp. 259-261. Minutes, p. 71 (March 21 and 24), p. 74
(March 28), p. 75 (April 2), p. 76? (April 4).
X Shaw, I, pp. 260-1, citing Commons Journal, IV, 114, April 17. The names
of the Committee are given by Shaw, p. 261, note.
I Shaw, I, p. 358, citing Commons Journal, IV, 113.
|| So Shaw, I, p. 358.

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 235
mittee appointed on April 18 then reported that the best way to
meet the immediate needs of Parliament would be to place in its
hands a revised edition of the XXXIX Articles, to serve until a
Confession of Faith could be prepared. Accordingly it was
ordered that the Committee in whose charge the revision of the
XXXIX Articles had formerly been, or perhaps the new Com
mittee of April 18* should " consider how far they or any of
them may be useful to be recommended to both Houses of Parli
ament for the present, till a Confession of Faith can be drawn up
by this Assembly ;" and further, that " the Committee for Con
fession of Faith do meet on Wednesday, in the afternoon."
Nothing further appears until Friday, May 9,f when a new order
having meanwhile been received from Parliament for dispatch,:}:
it was ordered " that the Assembly consider on Monday morning
the best way to expedite the Confession of Faith, .... and that
the two Committees for the Confession of Faith be pat into one."
What two Committees were here united we have no means of
ascertaining. We have heard hitherto of only one Committee to
which the ' ' preparing matter " for a Confession of Faith was
committed (August 20, 1644), and which was subsequently (Sep
tember 4) augmented ; and even on April 21, as we have just
seen, "the Committee for Confession of Faith" is spoken of
quite simply as if there were but one, and between that entry and
the present one there is no allusion in the Minutes to the matter. §
But Baillie, though in the previous autumn speaking of " a Com
mittee ' ' to which the Confession of Faith had been referred,
under date of April 25, says, " The Catechise and Confession of
Faith are put in the hands of severall committees." || It is prob
ably easiest to suppose that in the meanwhile another Committee,
additional to that of August 20-September 4, 1644, had been ap
pointed.^" At all events, in accordance with the provision of May
9, the Assembly on Monday, May 12, proceeded to make further
* The language is : "That the 39 Articles be reviewed by the former Committee,
and the Committee to consider &c  R. — To be referred to one Committee."
Hence apparently two Committees are in view : but finally the whole matter was
committed to one. Which one is not clear.
t On Tuesday, May 6, when the propositions as to the Civil Magistrate in the
Government were under debate, question was raised whether a proposed form of
statement should be placed in the Government or in " a Confession of Faith."
JShaw, I, 358, quoting C. J., IV, 133 : Minutes for May 8 (p. 90).
§ The Confession of Faith is mentioned in the interval only on May 6 (as above,
p. 228), and then only incidentally and indeterminately.
|| As cited, II, p. 266.
U Shaw, L 358, supposes the "committee to have subdivided" and to be now
reunited. It is possible, of course, that the two parts (that appointed August 20
and that appointed September 4,) had been sitting as separate committees and were
only now combined.

236 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
arrangements for "expediting the Confession of Faith." The
report in the Minutes of what was done is somewhat obscure.
But it appears that besides reading and debating "the report of
the Confession of Faith," there was an additional " debate about
the Committee for drawing up the Confession;" and it was deter
mined that " the first draught of the Confession of Faith shall be
drawn up by a Committee' of a few;" which Committee was then
constituted— apparently of the following members : Drs. Temple
and Hoyle, Messrs. Gataker, Harris, Burgess, Reynolds and
Herle. This Committee is then instructed to meet that same
afternoon ; and the Scotch Commissioners " are desired to be
assisting to this Committee."
The question arises whether this Committee was additional to the
former Committee or Committees (of August 20, September 4, 1644,
and May 9, 1645), or was a substitute for it or them. Dr. Mitchell
supposes the former, and looks upon this new Committee as
erected in order to receive the material collected by the alreadv
existing Committee, or Committees, and tc digest it into more
formal shape before it was finally submitted to the Assembly*
There are certain serious difficulties, however, in the way of this sup
position. And these are greatly increased by a subsequent act of
the Assembly's. On Friday, July 11, 1645, it was ordered — " Mon
day morning to divide the body of the Confession of Faith to the
three Committees." Accordingly on the next Monday — July 14
— we hear of a " debate about dividing of heads of confession : ' '
but the matter was not concluded on that day. On the following
Wednesday — -July 16, 1645 — we read of a " report made from the
Committee of the heads of Confession," and it was ordered :
" The first Committee to prepare the Confession of Faith upon
these heads: God and the Holy Trinity ; God's decrees, Predes
tination, Election, etc.; the works of Creation and Providence ;
Man's Fall ;" " The Second Committee: Sin, and the punishment
thereof ; Free will ; the Covenant of Grace ; Christ our Media
tor ; " " The Third Committee : Effectual Vocation ; Justification ;
Adoption ; Sanctification ; " " Those three Committees to meet
to-morrow in the afternoon ;" "If they think fit to leave out any
of those heads, or add any other, they are to make report to the
Assembly." Dr. Mitchell supposes with obvious justice that the
three large Committees into which the Assembly was permanently
divided for the preparing of its business f are referred to in these
orders ; and that ' ' the material prepared by the previous small
Committee ' ' was ' ' handed over to these larger Committees, and
* Baird Lectures, 2d ed., Phila., 1897, p. 367 sq.
t Concerning them see Mitchell, Baird Lectures, p. 147.

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 237
further discussed and elaborated by them before being brought
before the Assembly." This s'eems altogether reasonable in
itself, and is fully borne out by the subsequent proceedings. But
certainly, under this supposition, it becomes very unlikely that
the earlier Committee or Committees (of August 20, September
4, 1644, and May 9, 1645) still continued in existence — if for no
other reason than the complicated process which would in that
case be involved in getting the several parts of the Confession
before the Assembly. First the Committee of August 20-Sep-
tember 4, 1644, would collect the material ; then the Committee of
May 12, 1645, with the aid of the Scotch Commissioners, would
digest it ; then the large Committee required thereto on July 16,
would further digest it ; and only then would it reach the Assem
bly. Surely this complication of process throws something in the
•scale to justify us in looking on the Committee of May 12 as a
substitute for that of August 20-September 4, rather than addi
tional to it.* In that case we must suppose that the Assembly
had sought at first to get along with only one Committee, which
should prepare the matter of the Confession for its discussion ;
that that first appointed (August 20, 1644), augmented on Septem
ber 4, 1644, and again perhaps on May 9, 1645, had proved too
large and unwieldy for rapid work, and was superseded by a
smaller one, May 12, 1645 — the members of which were, however
(with one exception, viz., Mr. Harris), taken from the earlier
Committees. Subsequently, for the better digesting of the mate
rial, it was ordered (July 11 and 16, 1645) that the reports of the
Committee should in the first instance be submitted to one or
the other of the three great Committees into which the Assembly
was divided for the preparation of its business, and be by them
actually brought before the whole body.
There are, to be sure, not lacking some difficulties in the way of
the supposition of even this very natural and workable arrangement.
Among them the chief are that in the action of May 9 we read
(as we have seen) of its being ordered, " that the two Committees
for the Confession of Faith be put into one ;" and in the action
of July 4 we read of " the sub-Committee for the Confession of
Faith," as if there were still divisions in the Committee; and
again on July 18 we read of a " report concerning God, by Dr.
Temple" being put in — although Dr. Temple was not a member
of the First great Committee to which this topic was assigned, but
of the Third great Committee, while, on the other hand, he was a
member of the Committee of May 12, and as representing it had
* Shaw, I, p. 3)8, also seems to look upon the Committee of May 12, 1645, as a
substitute for the former Committee.

238 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
" made report of that part of the Confession of Faith touching
the Scriptures" on July 7 — i.e., before the distribution of the
heads to the three great Committees had been made. These
difficulties do not, however, seem to be insuperable. We have
already offered a suggestion in explanation of the mention of two
Committees on May 9. The term "Subcommittee" in the
action of July 4 need not be pressed : it may be, and probably is,
only a designation of the Committee of May 12, called Sub-
Committee possibly because of its small size in comparison with the
three great Committees ; or it may be thought not impossible that
the woris: on the topics of God and the Scriptures may actually
have been done by a Sub- Committee of that Committee. It
seems further, on closer examination, that Dr. Temple made the
report of July 18 on " God," as well as that of July 7 on " The
Scriptures," inconsequence of the order of July 4 " that the sub-
Committee for the Confession of B'aith shall make report to the
Assembly on Monday morning of what is in their hands concerning
God and concerning the Scriptures " — so that these two topics were
accounted as in that manner already before the Assembly, though
in the interval between this and July 18, when the " report con
cerning God, by Dr. Temple," was— not made, but— " read and
debated," provision had been made for another course to be sub
sequently pursued. It is not an insuperable objection to this
solution of the difficulty that in the distribution of the heads of
the Confession to the three Committees on July 16, the head on
" Scripture " is not assigned to the first Committee— doubtless as
already fully before the house— while the head on " God and the
Holy Trinity " is so assigned, as if it were not yet— at least in full
— before the house. There are so many things we do not know
about the precise course of action that a plausible supposition
such as we have suggested may be allowed to be probable, even
though We cannot explain all the details. And it is to be observed
that when the report on this topic came from the first Committee
on July 23, it was not of " God and the Holy Trinity," but " of
the article of the Trinity." It may be taken as likely then that
the original Committee of May 12 reported as required on the two
topics " The Scriptures " and "God," and that the first report
from the great Committee was on " the Trinity " only.
This construction receives furl her support from o'ther circum
stances. We hear nothing of ' ' Committees," but only of a " Com
mittee " on the Confession between the dates May 9, when the
" two Committees " were " put into one," and July 16, when the
three great Committees were charged with the Confession while
afterwards this is no longer so-as, e.g., on August 20 we read of

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 239
" the Committees for the Confession of Faith." We hear no more
of reports from Dr. Temple on the Confession after those on the
" Scriptures " of July 7 and on " God " of July 18. At the very
next session — July 23 — we read rather: " Report made from the
Committee of the Article of the Trinity," and afterwards, on
August 29 : " Report from the first Committee concerning God's
decrees ;" " Report made by the second Committee of Christ the
Mediator;" "Debate on the report of the first Committee of
God's decree;" on September 3, " Report from the first Com
mittee about adding the word ' absolutely ;' " " Debate about the
2d Committee's report of Christ the Mediator," and so on*
This mode of reference varied only to such forms as the following.
On September 8, " Dr. Gouge offered a report of an addi
tion, though the Committee was not a full number, but 7 " — Dr.
Gouge being a member of the First Committee, and possibly at
this time its chairman. f On September 9, " Dr. Stanton made
report additional pf Christ the Mediator.:]: Mr. Prophet made
report of Effectual Calling "§ — -Dr. Stanton having been from the
first chairman of the Second Committee and Mr. Prophet being a
member of the Third, the several Committees to which these topics
had been assigned on July 16. A note in the proceedings for
November 18 (sess. 537) gives the whole state of the case very
clearly : " Dr. Gouge [made] report from First Committee of
Creation. Mr. Whitakers from the Second Committee, of the Fall
of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof. The Third Com
mittee made no report." In the presence of such clear declara
tions, supported by a number of incidental references accordant with
them (such as have been set down in the margin), we need not
hesitate to say that the several heads of the Confession were obvi
ously reported directly to the Assembly by the three great Com-
* Reports from First Committee, Minutes, pp. 129, 130, 150, 151, 164, 166, 167,
171, 192. Reports from Second Committee, Minutes, pp. 130, 131, 150, 161, 162,
166, 167. Reports form Third Committee, Minutes, pp. 165, 173.
t The detailed history of the large Committees is obscure : see Mitchell, Baird
Lectures, pp. 148 sq. Dr. Burgess was the first chairman of the First Committee,
but he had in the meanwhile been in disgrace (p. 181) and during his suspension
a new chairman must needs have been chosen. Cf. January 29, 1646, "Mr. Cole
man made report of Christian Liberty " (cf. p. 104), Mr. Coleman being also a mem
ber o£ the first committee : March 5, " Report of Dr. Gouge about the Church."
X Cf. November 12, "Dr. Stanton [made] report from second Committee ;" De
cembers : "Report from Dr. Stanton of the Sacraments in general" (cf. p. 164) ;
but December 29, "Mr. Calamy made report of Baptism."
I Cf. November 20 : " Mr. Prophet brought in a report from the Third Commit
tee," etc.; March 5, 1646 : "Mr. Prophet made report of Religion and Worship,"
etc. ; but December 2, 1645: "Report from Mr. Cheynell of Justification "—Mr.
Cheynell being also a member of the Third Committee ; January 1, 1646 : "Dr:
Wincop made report from the Third Committee about the Law of God."

240 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
mittees, even though there remain a few instances where a refer
ence occurs not easily explicable.
The most striking of these are those instances in which we read
of a topic of the Confession being reported by a member who does
not seem to have been a member of the great Committee to which
this topic was assigned. On one occasion, for example, Dr. Gouge
is spoken of as reporting on a topic not belonging to the First, but
to the Second Committee : December 15, 1645, " Dr. Gouge made
report about Free Will." Dr. Gouge may have been acting here,
however, as representing not the original Committee which
reported this subject to the Assembly, but a special Committee to
which it or some part of it had been recommitted. Color is lent
to this suggestion by three facts. First, the recom
mitment of special points to special Committees was not uncom
mon with the Assembly ;' instances may be noted on pp. 183,
184, 187, 208, 217-18-19 of the Minutes. Sec
ondly, the note here is made in immediate conjunction with
a case of recommitment. The Minutes proceed: "Mr. Arrow-
smith made report of that committed concerning the Sacra
ments." The Sacraments constituted a topic belonging to the
Second Committee indeed, of which Mr. Arrowsmith was a mem
ber, and so this case may be only partially parallel. More
clearly similar is the instance of November 7, when we read :
" Report made by Mr. Reynolds about Reprobation " — evidently
in pursuance of the order of November 6 : " The paragraph
concerning Reprobation referred to the Committee to make re
port to-morrow morning." Mr. Reynolds was not, however, a
member, of the First Committee to which this topic belonged,
but of the Second:* and thus this would seem to be a case
of reference to a special Committee. The matter is plainer
still in another instance. We read in the Minutes for March 10,
1646 : "Mr. Seaman made report of Christian Liberty and
Liberty of Conscience "—a topic belonging to the First Committee
while Mr. Seaman was a member of the Second. The original
report on Christian Liberty, however, was made on January 29,
and not by Mr. Seaman but by Mr. Coleman— a member of the First
Committee, The subject was debated on that day, and again on
* Dr. Reynolds was, however, a member of the committee of September 4 1644
and also of that of May 12, 1645 : and it is, of course, conceivable that it was to'
this fundamental committee that the topic was recommitted. The case would not
be so simple in the instances of Mr. Gouge and Mr. Arrowsmith ; they were both
members of the committee of August 20, 1644, but not of that of May 12-which in
our view had been substituted for it. In Mr. Seaman's case, just to be mentioned
it ,s clear that it was to a special committee that the recommitment was made and
tlTATyT^ 16^ "^ °f ^ °f the COmmUteeS °f A^St 20' SeP^-

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 241
February 10, 12, 16, when it was resolved : " That this whole
head of Christian Liberty shall be recommitted;" and further,
* ' This shall be recommitted to a select Committee ' ' — whose
members are then named with Mr. Seaman at their head (p. 187).
It is, of course, from this Committee that Mr. Seaman reported on
March 10. It should, however, be borne in mind that we cannot im
plicitly trust the lists of names given in the schedule which Dr.
Mitchell prints of the members of the three great Committees at the
date'nearest to the time when the Assembly was busied with the
Confession. For example, we read in the minutes of January 29,
1646 : " Mr. Dury made report from the Second Committee of
Church Offices and Censures." But the name of Mr. Dury does
not occur on the roll of the members of the Second Committee,
nor indeed on any of the three rolls. A similar instance is found
in this same note of January 29 : " Mr. Newcomen, Mr. Dury, Mr.
Delmy, Dr. Temple, Dr. Gouge, added to the Committee for
report about the Law ; to report to-morrow morning." The refer
ence is not to the original Third Committee, which had reported the
chapter on the Law at least as early as January 7, but to a special
Committee appointed January 12 to consider the propositions
under debate concerning the meaning of the terms " ceremonial "
and " judicial." Of the names given in this additional list, two
— Messrs. Dury and Delmy — have no place in Dr. Mitchell's lists
of the three Committees. Thirdly, it may be added that
it does not appear likely that Dr. Gouge's report on December 15,
1645, represents the first report to the Assembly on tbe topic of Free
Will. A month before (on November 18) it had been represented
to the Assembly that the Second Committee had finished all the
heads of the Confession that had been committed to it ; and this
representation was made the occasion of a new distribution of
heads to the, three Committees. In the interval, before December
15, topics from this second distribution had been reported from
the Second Committee (e.g., December 1 on the Lord's Supper ;
December 5, "Of the Sacraments in general"). It does not
seem likely that these would be reported before report had been
made oi material lying ready for report before these topics were
undertaken. In the light of the facts, therefore, it seems certain that the sev
eral heads of the Confession were reported immediately km the
three great Committees to the Assembly, and that therefore there
was no Committee for further digesting their material inter
mediating between them and the Assembly. It is not safe to differ
on such a matter from Prof. Mitchell, but, on the whole, it appears
to us likely also that the small Committee appointed on the 12th

242 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
May, 1645, was substituted for the earlier Committee or Commit
tees (of August 20-September 4, 1644, and perhaps again in the
ensuing winter), and that the mode of procedure was that the
small Committee of May 12, 1645— consisting of seven, a quorum
of which was five — first drew up the heads of the Confession with
the aid of the Commissioners of the Church of Scotland : and that
these were then distributed by the Assembly among the three great
Committees for thorough digesting : whence they came back
finally to theAssembly for discussion and ordering.
The first two of these ' ' heads ' ' had, to be sure, according to our
supposition, already been reported to the Assembly by the small
Committee, before it had been determined to distribute the heads
between the three great Committees. In the minutes of the session
for- Friday, July 4, 1645, we read : ' ' Debate about the Confes
sion of Faith. That the sub-Committee for the Confession of
Faith shall make report to the Assembly on Monday morning of
what is in their hands concerning God and concerning the Scrip
tures." Accordingly on Monday, July 7, we read : " Dr. Temple
made report of that part of the Confession of Faith touching the
Scriptures. It was read, debated." We hear no more of the
. report on the head " God," to be sure, until July 18 — before which
date the distribution to the great Committees had been made. But
what we read there is not that Dr. Temple made report on this
topic, but: "Report concerning God, by Dr. Temple, read and
debated," while subsequently we read (July 23) : " Report made
from the Committee of the article of the Trinity." Whatever
may be the right explanation of these phrases, the reports of the
subsequent heads of the Confession were not made by Dr. Temple,
but as we have seen from the First, Second or Third Committee, or
some one of their representatives. This series begins, if not on
July 23, at least on August 29, with a notice of a repprt from the
First Committee on God's decrees and from the Second Committee
on Christ the Mediator. Thereafter the heads were reported one
by one from the several Committees to which their digesting had
been from time to time committed.*
The consideration given in the Assembly itself to the several
heads was very careful and the scrutiny of every clause and word
searching. Recommitments, ordinarily at least to special Com
mittees, were frequent : final dissent on the part of individuals was
sometimes entered. In a word, time, pains and scrupulous care
were not spared for perfecting the instrument. Thus the work
i«lThre Tt fT,d^b«Ur~JWy 16' 1645' November 18, 1645, February 23,
1646-to which should be added the supplementary distribution of August 19, 1646.

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 243 '
went slowly on, until near the middle of 1646, at which time,
though the work was not yet completed, the attention of the
Assembly was withdrawn by the Parliament to other matters.
During the course of these long-continued and searching debates,
it was inevitable that many alterations should be entered in the
drafts of the several heads as they were first laid before the
Assembly. It was felt by the Assembly from the first that pro
vision should be made to have the text and alterations properly
adjusted. As early as July 8, 1645, therefore, we find this
order : " That Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Herle, Mr. Newcomen be desired
to take care of the wording of the Confession of Faith, as it is
voted in the Assembly from time to time, and to report to the
Assembly when they think fit there should be any alteration in
the words. They are first to consult with the Commissioners from
the Church of Scotland, or one of them, before they report to the
Assembly." Of this Committee we hear nothing more : it doubt
less did the work committed to it and saw to it that the amend
ments made were fitted properly into their places and that all went
smoothly. As the work advanced, another Committee of similar
but apparently somewhat enlarged powers was appointed. This
was done on December 8, 1645 : " Ordered — Mr. Tuckney, Mr.
Reynolds, Mr. Newcomen, Mr. Whitakers, a Committee to review
the Confession of Faith as it is finished in the Assembly."
Apparently it was not contemplated that reports should be made
from this Committee in the meantime ; but rather that it should
quietly prepare matter for the further consideration of the Assem
bly in a final review of its work. At all events, after the stress
of interruption was over and the Confession was completed (at
least substantially), we find this Committee reporting (June 17,
1646). The note runs : " Report was made from the Committee
about ' the perfecting of the Confession of Faith ' " — and at once
it is " Ordered — That Mr. Arrowsmith be added to the Committee
for [perfecting] of the Confession of Faith* Upon a debate
about the ' reading of the Report again,' it was Besolved upon the
Q., ' Not to be read again entire but in parts.' It was debated,
and the Assembly began with the Scriptures ; and part of that
head was ordered." From this it would seem that the report of
the Committee on " the perfecting of the Confession of Faith "
consisted of the presentation of a perfected copy ; that this was
read first entire ; and then ordered to be again read in parts. Ou
June 19, 1646, it is further ordered, " That the Committee for
wording and methodizing the Confession of Faith shall have
liberty, as they see things imperfect, to complete them ; and to
make report unto the Assembly."
*Mr. Cawdry was added also, September 1, 1616.

244 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
Under the guidance of this Committee the Assembly thus went
again over the whole Confession. This work was not done per
functorily.* It was begun on June 17, 1646 : immediately after
determining, as has been already mentioned, to review the Con
fession in parts, it is noted: " The Assembly began with the
Scriptures; and part of that head was ordered. Ordered — To
proceed in the debate where we left." Accordingly in the
Minutes of the next day (June 18) we read : " The Assembly
proceeded in the debate of the Confession of Faith concerning
' the Scriptures;' and upon debate the whole head concerning the
Scriptures was ordered ; and it is as followeth  The Assem
bly proceeded in the debate of the Article concerning ' God and
the Holy Trinity ; ' and upon debate that head also was ordered ;
and it is as followeth  The Assembly proceeded in debate
of the Article ' Of God's Eternal Decree,' and upon debate part of
it was ordered. Upon debate about the last clause of it, con
cerning the handling of this doctrine, it was Resolved upon the
Q., To refer this until to-morrow morning. ' ' The next day accord
ingly : ' ' The Assembly proceeded in the debate of the Confession
of Faith ; and upon debate, that head ' of God's Eternal Decree '
was ordered and is as followeth  " Similarly chapters iv
and v were passed on the same day; part of chap, vi on June
22, and the remainder of chap, vi, and chaps vii and viii on June
¦25. Chap, ix, " of Free Will," gave apparently more trouble.
We read in the minutes of June 29 : " Report was made by Mr.
Tuckney ' of Free Will.' It was read, and also some additionals
to the Article ' of the Fall of Man.' The additionals were
¦debated . and ordered to be added. The Assembly debated on
Report ' of Free Will ; ' and upon debate of the first branch of
it concerning ' the natural liberty of the Will,' it was Resolved
•upon the Q., To be recommitted." In the minutes of the next
•day (June 30) accordingly we read : " Report was made from the
•Committee of the proposition concerning Free Will recommitted.
It was read and debated, and the whole Article assented to. It is
•as followeth  " On the same day chap, x was passed upon.
After this, work on the Confession was intermitted for nearly a
month, and was not resumed until a message was received from
Parliament desiring the early completion of the Confession (July
22).f On July 23 chaps, xi and xii were passed : and on the
* Compare Baillie's account of the care expended on this review, vol. ii, 400-403 :
the passages are extracted below, p. 258.
t This order was "due to a letter from the Assembly of the Kirk of Sootland of
the 18th of June, read in the Lords' on the 9th of July (L. J., viii, 425 ; C. J,
iv, 621)"-Shaw, I, 360. A letter from the Church of Scotland was delivered also
.to the Assembly, July 7.

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 245
next day, July 24, the interrupted work of framing the first draft
of the Confession was also resumed, the Second Committee bring
ing in its reports on chaps, xviii and xxxii. The time of the Assem
bly was thereafter largely absorbed in framing the remainder of
the first draft : and it is not until September 14 that we meet with
the next note bearing on the review : on that date chap, xvii was
passed upon in its perfected form, and on September 15 chap, xviii,
while on this latter date also: " Report was made from the Com
mittee for perfecting the Confession of Faith ' of the Law.' It
was read and debated, and upon debate much of it was assented
to, the rest referred to the Committee.' ' On September 16, chaps.
xiii and xiv were passed upon ; on the 17th the rest of chap, xix ;
on September 18, chap. xv. On September 21, chap, xvi was
passed ; an addition was proposed to it on the 22d by Mr. Prophet,
concerning which the Assembly — " Resolved upon the Q., Not to
take this paper now read into debate ;" nevertheless on September
23 its consideration was pressed on the attention of the Assembly
again, whereupon it was "Resolved upon the Q. , This proposition
shall not be added." On the same day chap, xiii, on Sanctifica
tion. was taken up renewedly and certain alterations proposed by
a Committee appointed for the purpose were entered into it. The
same afternoon Mr. Whitaker sought to secure a similar review
of a clause in chap, iii, but unsuccessfully.
Thus the framing of the first draft of the latter portion of the
Confession and the perfecting of that portion of it already drawn
up went on side by side. The House of Commons was meanwhile
still pressing for its completion and in response to an order re
ceived September 18,* chaps, xvi-xix were completed and passed
upon September 25, and the first nineteen chapters sent up to Par
liament. Chaps, xx and xxi were passed October 30 ; chap, xxii,
November 6 ; chap, xxiii, November 9 ; xxvii and xxviii, Novem
ber 10 ; xxix, November 16 ; xxv, November 17 ; xxvi, Novem
ber 20 ; xxx, xxxi, xxxii and xxxiii, November 26. On Novem
ber 26, 1646, the following note was spread on the minutes :
" The Confession of Faith was finished this day, and by order of
the Assembly the Prolocutor gave thanks, in the name of the
Assembly, to the Committee that had taken so good [or " great "]
pains in the perfecting of the Confession of Faith."
Even this exhibition of the work done in bringing the Confes-
sion to its present form is not, however, a complete account of the
pains expended on it. On September 18, 1646, there seems to
have been made an unsuccessful effort to establish yet another
*The order was made on September 16 (C. J, IV, 670; Shaw, I, 361), and
received on September 18 (Minutes, 235).

246 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
Committee for the reviewing of the whole Confession, after this
second passage of it through the Assembly. We read : " Upon
a motion to appoint a Committee to consider of the Confession of
Faith, what errors are not obviated in it, and to that end that there
be a review of the Articles of England and Ireland, it was Re
solved upon the Q., There shall be no Committee to consider of
the reviewing of the Articles what errors are not obviated in
them." The meaning of this is perhaps elucidated by the form
in which it stands in the other draft of the Minutes, lapping here
with the printed copy and called Fascicle iii by the editors : "A
new Committee to consider of all the errors unobviated in several
Confessions of England, Ireland and Scotland, to give in the cata
logue of these errors to the Committee for the wording. R. — No
Committee to consider of the reviewing Articles what errors are
not obviated in them." That is to say, apparently, what was
proposed was a Committee to see that all that was erroneous in
earlier Confessions had been fitly dealt with in the new Confes
sion : the anxiety seems to have been that no erroneous expres
sions, however slight and intrenched in the earlier Confessions,
should escape correction in this new one.
Though this effort failed, there was, however, a new reviewing
made of the text of the Confession that bore fruit for its perfecting.
This was accomplished in the process of its transcription. Over
this transcription Mr. Burgess had the oversight. He made report
September 21, 1646, " of the Confession of Faith transcribed, so
much of it as the Assembly had perfected. It was read, and upon
debate it was Resolved upon the Q., ' The several heads of the Con
fession of Faith shall be called by the name of Chapters.' Resolved
upon the Q., That the several sections be distinguished by figures
only.' ' Thus was inaugurated what was really a second revision of
the Confession— a passage of it through the Assembly for the third
time. By September 25, as we have seen, nineteen chapters had
passed through this third scrutiny, and were ordered sent up to the
Parliament. Subsequently to that we find repeated instances in
which Dr. Burgess moves certain alterations or additions to the
already completed chapters— which do or do not commend them
selves to the Assembly: e.g., on November 20 he moves certain
additions to chap, xxi, which had been passed on October 30 ; on
November 23, to chap, xxii, which had been passed on November
6; and an addition was made to chap, xxi on that same
day, doubtless on his motion. This process of improvement
continues even after the entry made on November 26, celebra
ting the completion of the Confession, i. e., during the whole
process of its official transcription. Thus on November 27 we

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 247
read: " Dr. Burgess moved for some alterations in the Con
fession of Faith in some words, which were assented to."
And again on December 1, " Upon a motion for an alteration
in the chapter of Censures in the Confession of Faith, it was
Resolved upon the Q., There shall be no alteration.' ' Indeed, the
¦onerousness of Dr. Burgess' work of overseeing the transcription
was recognized at this session by the order : " That the brethren
that drew up the Confession of Faith " — that is, as we should con
jecture, either the Committee appointed May 12, 1645, to frame
the first draft— Messrs. Gataker, Harris, Temple, Burgess, Rey
nolds, Hoyle, Herle, — or else the perfecting Committee — Messrs.
Tuckney, Reynolds, Newcomen, Whitaker, Arrowsmith and Caw-
dry — appointed December 8, 1645, and augmented January 17,
1646, and September 1, 1646—" do assist Dr. Burgess in reading
over the Confession of Faith with one of the scribes." On
December 3 a number of changes in chaps, xix, xxi, xxii. xxix,
xxxi were proposed by Dr. Burgess, and either accepted or
rejected, and the Committee was required further " to consider of
that which is propounded concerning the chapter of the Civil Magis
trate." Other changes were debated on December 4, and Dr.
Burgess' final report was made, whereupon it was "Ordered —
That thanks be returned to the Assessor, Dr. B urges, for his great
pains in transcribing the Confession of Faith, which was done by the
Prolocutor. Resolved upon the Q., This " [i.e., the transcribed and
finally adjusted copy of the Confession of Faith] " shall be pre
sented to both Houses of Parliament by the whole Assembly. The
Conf ession of Faith as it was presented is as followeth . . . ." Here
we reach the really final act in the Assembly's preparation of the
text of the Confession. Nothing remained now but the printing
of it, and on receiving from Parliament an order to that effect, it
was (December 10) " Ordered — That the Scribes take care of the
•exact printing of the Confession of Faith."
The work of preparing proof-texts for the Confession was
undertaken somewhat reluctantly by the Assembly, as a conse
quence of an order from the House of Commons of October 9,
1646, and reported in the Assembly on October 12. It was felt
that the demand for proof-texts was only an expedient of ' ' the
retarding party ' ; in Parliament (as Baillie calls it) to delay the
completion of the business : and it was feared that the attempt to
add the texts would (as Baillie expressed it) " prove a very long
business, if not dexterouslie managed," though, no doubt, it would
be" for the advantage and strength of the work."* A Com
mittee was, however, at once appointed to advise the Assembly
* Baillie, Letters, II, 403, III, 2. See the text below, pp. 258, 259.

248 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
" how obedience may be yielded to this order," and their report,
adopted October 13, set forth that to append full proofs to so
large a Confession would require a volume, and' could scarcely be
necessary, inasmuch as what was set forth in the Confession was
for its substance "received truths among all churches," and
the only question about it concerned ' ' the manner of expression or
the fitness to have it put in the Confession . ' ' What the Assembly
explicitly asked, however, was only time, not absolute reprieve
for the task.* Parliament was inexorable, and the work was fairly
begun on January 6, 1647 (Wednesday). We read: " Ordered — That
Mr. Wilson, Mr. Byfield, Mr. Gower, be a Committee to prepare
Scriptures for the Confession of Faith. ' ' On the very next day the
Scriptures for the first chapter were reported, and those for the
first paragraph were debated. The work was continued steadily
thereafter. The proof-texts of the first chapter were completed
on January 15 : and meanwhile those for the other chapters were
being reported — those for chap, ii having been brought in on Janu
ary 8, and for chap, iii on January 13. On Friday, March 5, 1647,
the texts for the final chapters were reported, and the Assembly
"Ordered — That thanks be returned to the Committee for the
Scriptures, for their great pains and diligence in that business ;
which was accordingly done by the Prolocutor. Ordered — That
Mr. Burges, Dr. Smith, Mr. Calamy, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Seaman,
Mr. Strickland, Mr. Spurstow, Mr. Case, Mr. Scudder, and Dr.
Hoyle, or any three of them, shall be a Committee to join with
the Committee for the Scriptures, to review the Scriptures. They
are to meet on Thursday next in the afternoon. The care of this
Committee is referred to Mr. Scudder." These resolutions mark
the completion of the proof-texts, however, only in the Com
mittee. At this time the Assembly's consideration of them had
reached no further than the Twentieth chapter. It was not until
April 5, 1647, that the work was completed by the Assembly.
On that date the note is entered in the Minutes : ' ' The Confes
sion was finished."
It was not even then " finished," however, except in first
draft; and it was ordered that the report of the reviewing
Committee should now go through the three large Committees^
and so come to the Assembly— the work to be begun on the next
day. There was an efiort made at the same time to have some
explanatory declaration added with reference to the proper use of
the proof-texts, but this was unsuccessful. The action in full was
as follows: " Upon a motion by Mr. Seaman that something be
* The answer of the Assembly to the requisition is printed by Dr. Mitchell in the
Baird Lectures, p. 377 : the rejoinder of the House in The Minutes, p. 295.

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 249
annexed by way of caution to show how the proofs are to be
applied, it was Resolved upon the Q., There shall be no further
debate about cautions to be added about the proofs of Scripture.
Resolved upon the Q., That the Review of the Confession of Faith
be considered by the three Committees of the Assembly. Or
dered — That the Committees appointed for the Review of the
Confession make report to-morrow morning what they have done
about it." It would seem that it was impracticable for the three
Committees to report the next day, however, and the expedient
appears to have been adopted — in this approximating to the man
ner in which the text of 1 he Confession itself was first taken up —
of having the Committee of Review report the first portion of the
texts directly to the Assem bly, while the remainder should come to
it only through the large Committees. This is at least what
appears to be implied by the entry for April 6 : " Mr. Scudder
made report of the Review of the proofs ot the Confession of
Faith for the seven first chapters and part of the 8th ; and
upon debate of it, it was assented to as the proofs are entered in
the margin of the Confession of Faith. Ordered — That the rest
of the 8th chapter, and chapt 9th to the 17th be referred to
the First Committee to review ; and from chapter 8th to the 25th
to the Second Committee, and from chapter 26th to the end of
the Confession to the Third Committee." On the succeeding
days, April 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, the reports of these Committees for
the several sections were brought in and the proof- texts passed by
the Assembly. On the 15th April it was "Ordered — That Mr.
Wilson, Mr. Gower, and Mr. Wallis do draw up, in the margin of
two books of the Confession of Faith, the Scriptures, to be pre
sented to the Parliament." An order having been received from
Parliament to send up the texts (April 22), this was done on April
26, 1647, and they were presented to both Houses on April 29. *
Thus the Confession of Faith passed in its completed form out
of the hands of the Assembly, and the history of the attempt to
create a common Confession of Faith for Great Britain properly
closes. All the world knows the subsequent fortunes of the
product of such long- continued labors. The text of the first
nineteen chapters, it w'll be remembered, was sent up prelimi
narily to the two Houses of Parliament : they were presented
to the House of Commons September 25, 1646, and to the House
of Lords, October 1. On December 4 the completed text went to
the Commons, and on the 7th of that month to the Lords.
*For a history of the proof-texts of the Confession, see Dr. Samuel T. Lowrie's
article in The Presbyterian Review, July, 1888 (ix, 445 sq.), and his reports in the
Minutes of the General Assembly for 1891 (p. 129 sq.), and 1894 (p. 157 sq.), or
in the Digest of 1898 (p. 21 sq.).

250 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
Alreadv by November 4, 1646, the first nineteen chapters had
passed the House of Lords in the exact form in which they had
been sent up by the Assembly : the remainder was passed by
them February 16, 1647. In the Commons, however, the matter
dragged. The first nineteen chapters were passed perfunctorily on
October 6, 1646, and taken up for debate in the grand Committee
on October 9 : and then things stopped. Despite prodding from
the Lords, the Commons awaited the reception of the proof-texts
before they would do anything. On the 29th April, 1647, " the
Scriptures ' ' were handed to them, but the commencement of the
debate was still postponed until May 19. and their review of the
whole was not completed until March 17, 1648. On the 22d of
that month a conference was held with the Lords concerning the
changes introduced by the Uommons, all of which the Lords
assented to except that on " Marriage," and this being made
known on June 3 to the Commons, the amended Confession was
ordered printed on June 20, 1648. This edition omits the whole
of chapters xxx and xxxi, and also the fourth paragraph of
chapter xx and part of the fourth and the whole of the fifth and
sixth paragraphs of chapter xxiv, together with the last clause
of the fourth paragraph of chapter xxiii, besides making some
unimportant alterations in that paragraph. " Further than this,"
remarks Mr. Shaw, " the Long Parliament never got in its review
of the celebrated Confession."* It was indeed taken up again by
" the Rump " in 1560, and on March 2 agreed to as reported irom
the Assembly " in all the chapters except the 30th and 31st," and
by an Act passed March 5 declared to be " the public Confession
of Faith of the Church of England." But, as Mr. Shaw remarks,
" needless to say that the enactment was perfectly futile and un
regarded." Meanwhile, the Confession as presented to Parliament and printed
without proofs in January, 1647, was carried at once to Scotland
by Baillie, and presented to the Commission of the General As
sembly ; and doubtless the edition of the same with proofs, printed
in the spring, reached Scotland before the meeting of the Assembly.
At all events, it was in this form that, having been carefully con
sidered in the Assembly of that year, it was passed by an ap
proving act, nemine contradicente, at its twenty-third session. This
Act was ratified by the Scottish Parliament, February 7,' 1649 •
and after the evil days of 1661, again in 1690. Thus it comes about
that the Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland is in all
respects the Confession as framed by the Assembly of Divines
and that the real history of the creation of the Confession closes
with its labors, and may neglect all that was done in Parliament.
* As cited, i, p. 365.

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 251
F'or the better apprehension of the progress of the various
chapters of the Confession through the hands of Assembly of
Divines we append a tabular statement of the work done upon
each :*
Chapter I.— "The sub-Committee for the Confession of Faith " was instructed on
Friday, July 4, 1645, to "make report to the Assembly on Monday morning of
what is in their hands concerning .... the Scriptures." Accordingly on
Monday, July 7, "Dr. Temple made report of that part of the Confession of
Faith touching the Scriptures. It was read, debated." It was debated on July
7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. It was debated in review June 17, 18, 1646. The
Scriptural proofs were reported January 7,f 1647, and debated January 7, 8,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15 : and reviewed April 6, 1647. It was debated in the House
of Commons on the 19th and 28th May, 1647 (Journals of the House of Com
mons, v, 177, 189) ; and the respited \ 8 again debated and accepted, 17th
March, 1648 (ib., v, 502).
Chapter IL— "The sub-Committee for the Confession of Faith " was instructed on
Friday, July 4, 1645, to "make report to the Assembly on Monday morn
ing of what is in their hands concerning God  " Meanwhile on July
16, it was " Ordered— The first Committee to prepare the Confession of Faith
upon these heads : God and the Holy Trinity  " Nevertheless on
July 18, the "report concerning God" was made by Dr. Temple, the chairman
of "the sub-Committee." This was debated July 18 and 23, and on the latter
date it is noted that a report was "made from the Committee,'' i.e., obviously
the First Great Committee, "of the article of the Trinity." Clearly "the
propositions concerning God " were reported in accordance with the order of
July 4 from the "sub-Committee for the Confession of Faith," and the "ar
ticle of the Trinity," in accordance with the disposition of the heads made on
Jnly 16, by the First Committee.:): The whole "Article concerning 'God
and the Holy Trinity' '' was reviewed June 18, 1646. The Scriptural proofs
were reported on January 8, 1647, and debated and ordered on the 18th : and
reviewed April 6. It was debated in the House of Commons, May 28, 1647
(Journals, etc., v, 189).
Chapter IH. — On Jnly 16, 1645, it was "Ordered — The first Committee to prepare
the Confession of Faith upon .... God's decrees, Predestination, Election,
etc." On August 29 — "Report from the first Committee concerning God's
decrees" — and debate at once began. Debates were held on August 29, Sep
tember 2, 3, [8], 9, 11, October 3, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 [30 ?], 31, November 3, 6,
7, 11. It was debated in review June 18, 19, 1646, and an additional debate
was held on September 23, 1646. The Scriptural proofs were reported Jan
uary 13, 1647, and debated and ordered January 19, 20, 21 : they were re
viewed April 6. The chapter was debated in the House of Commons, May
28, 1647 (Journals, etc., v, 189).
Chapter IV.— On July 16, 1645, it was "Ordered — The first Committee to prepare
the Confession of Faith upon .... the works of Creation and Providence."
* We have taken the idea of this tabular statement from Shaw (i, 367 sq.), who
prints such an one ; and we at first intended simply to quote Shaw's table. But
on examination the accuracy of his presentation appeared scarcely adequate, and
we have made out the whole afresh — deriving, of course, such aid from Shaw as we
could. Where our table differs from Shaw's, therefore, it differs wittingly.
f See also Minutes, p. 473.
X From Baillie also (ii, 344) we learn that the Articles "God" and "Trinity"
¦when first passed were two separate Article?. See below, p. 258.

252 THE PR ESB YTERIAN AHD REFORMED RE VIE W.
On November 17, there was made a "report from the first Committee concern^
ingestion." it was debated on November 18, 1 9 20, on the latter date the
note running : "The Assembly proceeded in the debate of the report of J Crea
tion, and finished." It was reviewed June 19, 1646. The Sc ^ J™£
were reported on January 15, 1647, and debated and ord ered on J™ 21
and 28 ; they were reviewed April 6. The chapter was debated in the House
of Commons, October 2, 1647 (Journals, etc., v, 323.)
Chapter V.-On July 16, 1645, it was " Ordered-^ first Committee to prepare
the Confession of Faith upon .... the works of Creation and Providence.
On November 27, there was "report made from the First Committee about
Providence " It was debated November 28, December 2 and 4 : and reviewed
and ordered June 19, 1646. The Scriptural proofs were debated on January
28, 29, and February 1 ; and they were reviewed April 6, 1647. The chapter
was debated in the House of Commons, October 2, 1647 (Journals, etc., v, 323).
Chapter VI -On July 16, 1645, it was "Ordered-The first Committee to prepare
the Confession of Faith upon  Man's Fall": and again, "The second
Committee : Sin, and the punishment thereof. " How the two topics were got
together we are not informed. On November 17, 1645, there was made a
"report concerning Fall of Man, Sin, and the Punishment thereof." This
was debated November 20, 21. The review was introduced June 19, 1646,
and debated and ordered June 22 and 25 : and additions were made June 29.
The Scriptural proofs were debated and ordered February 2, 1647 : and reviewed
April 6.
Chapter VII.— On July 16, 1645, it was " Ordered— The second Committee [to pre
pare the Confession of Faith upon] . . . the Covenant of Grace." It was
reported before October 9, at which date "the Assembly proceeded in the de
bate of the report concerning the Covenant^]."* It was debated further
October 10, 17, November 6, 14, 17, December 23, 1645 ; and reviewed and
ordered June 25, 1646. The Scriptural proofs were reported January 21, 1647,
and debated and ordered February 3 and 5.
Chapter VIII.— On July 16, 1645, it was " Ordered— The second Committee [to
prepare the Confession of Faith upon] .... Christ our Mediator." On
August 29 following, there was "report made by the second Committee of
Christ the Mediator." It was debated September 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16,
and November 13, 1645 : and reviewed June 25, 1646. The Scriptural proofs
were debated and ordered February 8, 1647, and reviewed April 6 and 7, -1647.
Chapter IX.— On July 16, 1645, it was " Ordered— The second Committee [to pre
pare the Confession of Faith upon] .... Free-will." On December 15 next,
"Dr. Gouge made report about Free-will,"t and on the 17th this report was
debated. It was reviewed and ordered June 29, 30, 1646. The Scriptural
proofs were reported February 2, 1647, and debated and ordered on February
9 : they were reviewed April 8.
Chapter X. — On July 16, 1645, it was "Ordered — The third Committee [to prepare
the Confession of Faith upon] Effectual Vocation. " On September 9 follow
ing, "Mr. Prophet made report of Effectual Calling." It was debated Sep
tember 17, 25, 29 (30), November 6, 13 : and reviewed and ordered June 30,
1646. The Scriptural proofs were reported February 3, 1647, and debated and
ordered February 9 : they were reviewed A.pril 8.
* Why tbe bracketed "s" appears in the printed Minutes is not obvious. The
" s " is arbitrarily present or absent in the allusions in the Minutes.
t Why it is not likely that this is the first report of chap, ix made to the Assem
bly is explained above, p. 241.

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 253
Chapter Xl.-On Jnly 16, 1645, it was "Ordtred-The third Committee [to pre
pare the Confession of Faith upon] .... Justification." On December 2
next, there was made "report from Mr. Cheynell of Justification." It was
debated December 3, (5), 8, 9, 10, (11), 16 ; and reviewed and ordered July
23, 1646. The Soriptural proofs were reported February 4, 1647, and debated.
and ordered Feb. 10, 11 : they were reviewed April 8.
Chapter XII. -On July 16, 1645, it was " Ordered-The third Committee [to pre
pare the Confession of Faith upon] .... Adoption." On November 20 next,
' Mr. Prophet brought in a report from the Third Committee about Adoption. ' '
It was reviewed and ordered July 23, 1646. The Scriptural proofs were
reported February 5, 1647 : debated and ordered February 11 ; and reviewed
April 8.
Chapter XIII.-On July 16, 1645, it was " Ordered-The third Committee [to pre
pare the Confession of Faith upon] .... Sanctification." On November 20
following, Mr. Prophet brought in a report from the Third Committee " about
Sanctification." It was debated November 24 : and reviewed and ordered Sep
tember 16 and 23, 1646. The Scriptural proofs were reported February 5,
1647, and ordered February 12 : they were reviewed April 8.
Cbapter XIV.— On the 19th August, 1646, it was "Resolved upon the Q., These
heads of Faith, Repentance, and Good Works shall be referred to the three
Committees in their order to prepare something upon them for the Confession
of Faith."* From August 21 to August 31 inclusive the Assembly sat only as
a Grand Committee, lacking a quorum for a formal meeting : during this time
the report on Saving Faith was reviewed, f This report was formally called
up in the Assembly, September 4. It was debated September 9, and reviewed
and ordered September 16. The Scriptural proofs were reported February 12,
1647 : they were reviewed April 8.
Chapter XV. — This chapter also was ordered to be prepared (by the Second Com
mittee) August 19, 1646 (see under chap, xiv ad init.). On September 9,
"Dr. Stanton made Report of the Article concerning Repentance." It was
debated September 10, 17, 18, at the last of which sessions it was ordered : on
September 25, it was finally passed. The Scriptural proofs were debated Feb
ruary 12, 1647 : and reviewed April 8.
Chapter XVI. — This chapter also was ordered to be prepared (by the Third Com
mittee) August 19> 1646 (see under chap, xiv ad init.). On September 3
1646, " Report was made by Dr. Temple ' of Good Works.' " It was debated
September 9, 18, 21, and ordered : the matter was reopened September 22, 23 ;
and the perfected Chapter passed September 25. The Scriptural proofs were
debated and ordered February 15, 1647 : and reviewed April 8.
Chapter XVII.— On November 18, 1645, there was referred " to the First Commit
tee, Perseverance  " On December 19 following, there was made "Re
port from the First Committee of Perseverance." It was debated December
29, 1645 ; and reviewed September 14, 1646, and finally passed September 25.
The Scriptural proofs were debated and ordered February 17, 1647, and re
viewed April 8.
Chapter XVIII.— On February 23, 1646, it was "Ordered .... To the Second
Committee — Certainty of Salvation  " It was reported from the Sec
ond Committee July 24, 1646, and " Ordered— This to be the title— 'Of the
Certainty of Salvation.' " It was debated July 24 and 30, and September 14,
* It will be noted that these three chapters were apparently afterthoughts ; they
were, to all appearance, not contemplated in the first planning of the Confession.
f Minutes, p. 271.

254 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
15 and assented to under the title, " Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation ;"
and finally p.xssed September 25. Tbe Scriptural proofs were debated on Feb -
ruary 17 and 18, and reviewed April 7, 1647.
Chapter XIX -On November 18, 1645, there was referred "to the Third Commit
tee the Law  " On January 1, 1646, "Dr. Wincop made report from
the' Third Committee about the Law of God." It was debated on January 7,
9 12 13 29, February 2 and 9, 1646 ; also in the Grand Committee during the
interval in the Assembly's meetings August 21-31, and in the Assembly Septem
ber 1 , 2, 3, 4, 15, 17, and finally passed September 25, 1646. A slight alteration
was f'urth'er'made on December 3. The Scriptural proofs were debated and
ordered on February 19 and 22, 1647.
Chapter XX.— On November 18, 1645, there was referred "to the First Commit
tee .... Christian Liberty  " Ib was debated January 29, 1646,
February 9, 10, 11, 12, 16 (23), March (4), 10 * 26, t 27, t 30, 31, g and again
September 23, 24, 25, October 1, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 30. The
Scriptural proofs were debated and ordered February 25, 26, 1647, March 2, 3,
4 5 11, 12. This chapter was debated in the House of Commons on the 4th
February, 1648, and § 4 respited until chapter xxx was under consideratioa
{Journals, etc., v. 455).
Chapter XXL— On November 18, 1645, there was referred " to the Third Commit
tee  Religion, Worship  " And on February 23, 1646, it was
"Ordered — To the First Committee, in chief heads, — Christian Sabbath  "
On March 5, 1646, "Mr. Prophet made report of Religion and Worship," and
on March 9, there was made "Report of the Sabbath." " Religion and Wor
ship " was debated March 9,|| 10 (when the title was changed to " of Religious
Worship"), IT 20, 26,** when the subject is recorded as finished. The topic
' ' Of the Sabbath ' ' was debated April 6 (when the title was set as " Of the Sab
bath day "). On October 12 the two heads reappeared together : " Mr. Tuck
ney made report 'of Religious Worship and Sabbath-day ;' " but it does not
appear further that they constituted a single chapter. On October 30, "the
Assembly debated the Chapter ' of Religious Worship ;' and upon debate it was
assented to . . . .;" and there were further debates on November 20 and 23,
and a slight correction was ordered on December 3. Report of Scriptural
proofs for the 21st chapter was made February 18, 1647. The process by
which the two chapters were reduced to one is obscure. It was debated in the
House of Commons on February 4, 1648 (Journals, etc., v, 455).
Chapter XXII. — On January 8, 1646, there was made a "Report of a Lawful Oath
by Mr. Prophet." Mr. Prophet was chairman of the Third Committee, but
no such "head" had been recorded among the "heads" distributed to this
Committee : perhaps it had emerged into a separate topic in the discussions of
the head of "worship" assigned to the Third Committee on November 18,
1645. tt It was debated January 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 1646 : and in review, Octo
ber 12 ('of Lawful Oaths and Vows '), November 3, 6 : while on November 23
and December 3 additional adjustment t were made. The Scriptural proofs
were reported February 18 and reviewed April 12, 1647. It was debated in
the House of Commons, 4th February, 1648 (Journals, etc., v, 455).
* Cf. also p. 205. f Cf. p. 436. ± Cf. p. 437. \ Cf. p. 439.
|| Cf. also p. 205.
If P. 205. ** Cf. p. 435.
tfSee what is said of the topic, "Lies and Equivocations," at the end of this
tabular statement (p. 256 N. B.) Is it posssible that this chapter was developed
out of that topic ? It is against this supposition that different committees seem
concerned.

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 255
Chapter XXIII.— On February 23, 1646, it was "Ordered— To the First Commit
tee, in chief heads .... the Civil Magistrate." It was reported to the
Assembly, March 26, 1646, and debated April (23), 24, 27, [and possibly again
October (12), 13, 14, 15, 20, although these debates probably belong to chap.
xx]. It was passed November 9, while further adjustments were made on
December 3, 4. The Scriptural proofs were debated on March 3, and reviewed
April 12, 1647. It was debated in the House of Commons, 4th February, 1648
(Journals, etc., v, 455).
Chapter XXIV.— On February 23, 1646, it was " Ordered— To the First Committee,
in chief heads— .... Marriage and Divorce." On June 17 next, "Report
was made 'of Marriage' ": and the report was taken up July 23, and debated
August 3 and 4— apparently under the simple title " Of Marriage." Accord
ingly on August 10, ' ' Dr. Gouge made Report ' of Divorce, '" which under the
tile " Of Divorce ' ' was taken up and debated September 10, 11 . The two were,
however, reported on October 12 as constituting one "head," and were so
debated November 9, 10, 11, and so passed. The Scriptural proofs were
reported on March 3, 1647. The chapter was debated in the House of Com
mons, February 4, 11, and March 3, 1648 (Journals, etc., v, 455, 461, 478).
Chapter 5XTV. — On November 18, 1645, there was referred "to the First Commit
tee ... . the Church  " When we next hear of it, it is already in pro
cess of debate, February 16, 1646 : the debate continues February 23, 26, 27,
March 2, (3, 4), 5 [6, 9,* 13,t 16, 17, 18, 19, (20), (26), April 3, 7, 8, 10. 13, 14,
15, 16, 17], X 20, 21, 22.JS It was taken up in review November 13, 1646,
and ordered on the 17th. The Scriptural proofs were reported March 3, 1647.
The chapter was debated in the House of Commons, March 10, 1648 (Jour
nals, etc., v, 489).
Chapter XXVI.— On November 18, 1645, there was referred " to the First Com
mittee .... the Communion of Saints." On February 17, 1646, there was
made a "Report of the Committee of the Communion of Sacraments" (sic):
and debate was entered upon on it March 3, and continued March 4, 5. It
was resumed for review November 13, 17, 19, 20. The Scriptural proofs were
reported March 3, 1647, and reviewed April 7. It was debated in the House of
Commons, March 10, 1648 (Journals, etc., v, 489).
Chapter XXVII. — On November 18, 1645, there was referred " to the Second Com
mittee .... Sacraments." The report was called for December 2, 1645, and
given in December 5. It was debated December 11, 12, 15, 16, 24, 25, and
recalled for review November 10, 1646. The Scriptural proofs are not referred
to in the Minutes. It was debated in the House of Commons, March 10, 1648
(Journals, etc., v, 489).
Chapter XXVIII. — On November 18, 1645, there was referred "to the Second
Committee .... Baptism." On December 29 following, " Mr. Calamy made
report of Baptism." Debate was held on the chapter, January 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9,
* Cf. also p. 204. f Cf. also p. 206.
X The material developed in the debates recorded on the dates contained within
these square brackets entered very little into the formation of chap. xxv. Part of
it was incorporated into chap. xxx.
I The debates on the jus divinum which took place on May (1), 4, 5, 7, 8, 15,
18, 19, (25), 28, June 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, July 6, 7, 10, 17, did not, of
course, directly concern chap, xxv, but rather were in preparation of the answer of
the Assembly to certain Parliamentary "Questions." See Baillie's account as
given on p. 258, below ; and compare Shaw, I, 308 sq. But the material thus
gathered indirectly bore fruit for this chapter also.

256 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
16, (19), 21, 26, 1646; and again September 11 ; and on November 10 it was
reviewed and ordered. No record of the adding of the Scriptural proofs. It
was debated in the House of Commons, March 10, 1648 (Journals, etc., v, 489).
Chapter XXIX.— On November 18, 1645, there was referred "to the Second Com
mittee .... the Lord's Supper." On December 1 following, there was made
a "Report from the Second Committee of the Lord's Supper:" debate
was "proceeded in" December 26 : again it was taken up November 11, 12,
13, 1646, and on November 16 ordered. On December 3 some slight adjust
ments of language were made. The Scriptural proofs were reported March 5,
1647. The chapter was debated in the House of Commons, March 10, 1648
(Journals, etc., v, 489).
Chapter XXX.— On November 18, 1645, there was referred "to the Second Com
mittee, Officers and Censures of the Church." On January29, 1646, "Mr. Dury
made report from the Second Committee of Church Officers and Censures." It
was debated April 23,* and recalled for review November 13, 23, 26, and at this
last date ordered. An alteration was again proposed December 1. The Scrip
tural proofs were reported March 5, 1647, and voted April 2, 1647 (p. 345,
note 1).
Chapter XXXI.— On November 18, 1645, there was referred "to the Second Com
mittee .... Councils or Synods." It was reported to the Assembly, August
4, 1646, and debated August 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20 : and again in
review November 13 and 26, when it was ordered. On December 3 alterations
were debated. The Scriptural proofs were reported March 5, 1647, debated
and ordered April 2 (p. 345, note 1), and reviewed April 13.
Chapter XXXII.— On February 23, 1646, it was "Ordered— .... To the Sec
ond Committee, .... the State of the Soul after death. To the Third
Committee, — The Resurrection." The former was reported July 24, 1646, and
debated July 31. The latter was reported August 4, and debated September
4. On November 26, 1646, "the Assembly debated 'of the state of Man
after death :' and upon debate it.was assented to  " How or when the
two were united does not appear. The Scriptural proofs for the chapter were
reported March 5, 1647, and voted April 5 (p. 345, note 2). It was debated in
the House of Commons, March 10, 1648 (Journals, etc., v, 489).
Chapter XXXIII.— On February 23, 1646, it was "Ordered— .... To the
Third Committee  the last Judgment, Life Eternal." The topic was
debated in the Grand Committee during the interval in the meetings of the
Assembly, August 21-31, 1646, and was debated in the Assembly September
4, and again on review November 26, when it was ordered. The Scriptural
proofs were reported March 5, 1647, and voted April 5 (p. 345, note 2). It was
debated in the House of Commons, March 10, 1648 (Journals, etc., v, 489).
N. B.— In the third distribution of the "heads" made February 23, 1646, the topic
"Lies and Equivocations" was assigned to the Second Committee. This
topic does not emerge again by report to the Assembly, and there is no such
chapter in the completed Confession. Possibly it was found that the material
to be dealt with in it was sufficiently covered in chap, xxii, "Of Lawful Oaths
and Vows " (see above chap, xxii, notett).t

* See above under chap, xxv, note.
t Shaw, I, p. 372, mentions the topic Dedication to God, which is reported as
debated January 2, 1646, as "if not represented by Article XII" (Adoption),
probably a subsequently omitted Article. Possibly, however, it signalizes only a
debate on one phase of Baptism, in immediate contiguity with which it is mentioned.

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 257
To this statement we append the chief references to the work of
the Assembly on the Confession made in Baillie's Letters :
Under date of August 18, 1644 (Vol. II, p. 220), Baillie recounts the coming of
Warriston and the efforts for expedition (see the text above, p. 232), and under date
of August 28 (p. 224) he recounts the progress thus far made in the work of "the
Covenanted Uniformity." Direct mention of the Confession begins in the Pub
lick Letter of October, 1644 : "The Confession of Faith is referred to a committee
to be put in severall the best hands that are here " (p. 232). Under date of Nov
ember 21 he writes: "What remains of the Directorie .... will soon be dis
patched. The Catechise is drawn up, and, I think, shall not take up much tyme.
I feare the Confession of Faith may stick longer " (p. 242) . Under date of December
26 : "If the Directorie and Government were once out of our hands, as a few days
will put them, then we will fall on our great question of Excommunication, the
Catechise, and Confession. There is here matter to hold us long enough, if the
wrangling humour which has predomined in many here did continue ; but thanks be
to God, that is much abated, and all inclines toward a conclusion  I think we
must either passe the Confession to another season, or, if God will help us, the heads
of it being distribute among many able hands, it may in a short time be so drawn
up, as the debates of it may cost little time " (p. 248). Under date of April 25,
1645: "The Catechise and Confession of Faith are put in the hands of severall
committees, and some reports are made to the Assemblie concerning both. We
expect not so much debate upon these, as we had in the Directorie and Govern
ment" (p. 266). Under date of May 4, 1645 : "Our next work will be the Con
fession and Catechisme, upon both which we have allreadie made some entrance ' '
(p. 272). In an undated letter printed immediately after the one just quoted
from : " We are at a point with the Government ; and beginning to take the Con
fession of Faith and Catechise to our consideration " (p. 275). Under date of July
8, 1615: " Mr. Henderson .... and Mr. Rutherfoard are gone this day to Epsom
waters : so long as anything is to doe here, he cannot be away. I hope the rest of
us may ere long be well spared, if once we had through the Catechise and a part of the
Confession" (p. 296). Under date of July 8: "Since my last, with our former
part, July 1, we have, thanks be to God, at last finished the whole body of Gov
ernment  Since, we have entered on the Confession of Faith ; as yet I cannot
pronounce of the length or shortness of our proceedings therein " (p. 300). In an
undated public letter belonging doubtless to August, 1645 : "In the Assemblie we
have gone through a part of the Catechisme, and a part of the Confession of Faith ;
but .... many [hindrances] when least we expect them, comes in our way
. . . ." (p. 306). Under date of September 5 : " In the Assemblie we are goeing
on languidlie with the Confession of Faith and Catechisme " (p. 315). Under date
of November 25 : "In the Assemblie, we are goeing on with the Confession of Faith.
We had long and tough debates about the Decrees of election ; yet thanks to God
all is gone right according to our mind" (p. 325). "We go on daily in some
proposition of the Confession of Faith : till this be ended we will not take in any
more of the Catechise" (p. 326). In an undated letter belonging to January 15,
1646 : "We are going on in the Assemblie with the Confession, and could, if need
were, shortly end it " (p. 336). In an undated letter ascribed by Dr. Laing to
about January 20, 1646, he says : " We goe on with prettie speed now in our Con
fession of Faith. We have past the heads of Scripture, God, Trinity, Decrees,
Providence, Redemption, Covenant, Justification, Sanctification, Free-will, Sacra
ments in generall, a part of Perseverance, and of the Lord's Supper" (p. 344).
Under date of January 3, 1646 : "We proceed but slowlie in the Confession of
Faith " (p. 348) . In February, 1646 : "However we wait daylie on the Assemblie,
yet our progresse in the Confession of Faith is but slow .... yet we hope, by God's
gTace, ere long to end this Confession" (p. 349). Cf. March 17, 1646 (p. 360).

258 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
Under date of June 26, 1646 : " The Parliament's questions have retarded us much :
without them we had ended the Confession of Faith " (p. 377) . Under date of July
14, 1646 : "I have put some of my good friends, leading men in the House of Com
mons, to move the Assemblie to lay aside our questions"- ["some very captious
questions ofthe Parliment, about the clear Scripturall warrant for all the punc
tilios ofthe Government," sent in, as Baillie thinks, just "to keep all things from
any conclusion"] "for a time, and labour that which is most necessar, and all are
crying for, the perfecting of the Confession of Faith and Catechise. If this motion
take, I hope we shall end shortly our Confession, for there is but a few articles
now to goe through : it will be a very gracious and satisfactorie Confession when
you see it" (p. 379). Under date of August 13, 1646 : " In the Assemblie we were
like to have stucken many moneths on the questions ; and the Independents were
in a way to gett all their differences debated over again. I dealt so with Mr. Rous
and Mr. Tate, that they brought us ane order from the House to lay aside the
questions until Confession and Catechise were ended. Many took it for a trick of
the Independents and Erastians for our hurt ; but I knew it was nothing less. We
are now near an end of our Confession : we stick in the article of Synods, upon the
proposition of their coercive power, or their power to excommunicat. Ii this were
over, we apprehend no more long debates on the Confession " (p. 388). Under the
date of August 18, 1646 : "In the Assemblie we are returned to the Confession of
Faith, and are drawing towards the end of it " (p. 390). Under date of September
22, 1646 : "We have ended the Confession of Faith for the matter, and have perfy ted
the most half of it, nyneteen chapters ; the other seventeen, I hope, in ten or twelve
days will be perfyted, and so all be sent up to the Houses. It will be, I hope, a very
sweet and orthodox peice, mnch better than any Confession yet extant, if the House
of Commons mangle it not for us " (p. 397). Under date of October 2, 1646 : "The
Assemblie obleidged themselves by promise to sitt before and after noon for some
tyme ; but now, thinking they have satisfied the Houses, by sending up the half of the
Confession, the first nineteen heads, they are relapsed into their former negligence.
So we will be able few days in a week to make ane Assemblie ; for if there be ane
fewer than forty, it is no meeting ; and though the rest of the heads be also past,
yet, in the review, the alteration of words, and the methodizing, takes up so much
time, that we know not when we shall end. Besides that we have some addition-
alls, especially one proposition about libertie of conscience, wherein the Indepen
dents offer to keep us long and tough debates ; for long agoe they have laid doune
in this their maske, and pleads for a libertie weell near universall " (pp. 400, 401).
Under date of October 13, 1646 : " Our Assemblie for one twenty dayes posted hard ;
hot since hes gotten into its old pace. The first halfe, and more, of the Confession
we sent up to the House ; the end of these who called for it, wes the shuffling out
ttie Ordinance against Errors ; yet our friends hes carried to goe on with that ; but
others hes carried the putting of Scriptures to the margin of the Confession, which
may prove a very long business, if not dexterouslie managed. It will yet be a
fortnight before the other halfe of it be ready; for sundry necessar but scabrous
propositions were added in the review " (p. 403) . Under date of October 27, 1646 :
" . . . . before the Assemblie end the Confession ; for that long I purpose to stay,'
though my permission to goe were come" (p. 406). Under date of December 1, 1646':
"With much adoe we have gone through, at last, the rest of our Confession : the'
first part I sent, to you three only, in Mr. David's letter, long agoe ; the whole
will goe up to the House one of these dayes, and so to the presse. It's generally
taken here for a very gracious and brave peece of work " (p. 411). About Christ
mas, 1646 : "Oui Assemblie, with much adoe, at last have wrestled through the
whole Confession, and all is now printed. The House of Commons requires to put
Scripture to it before they take it to consideration ; and what time that will take
up, who knows?" (p. 415). Under date of January 26, 1647 : " The third point [of
Uniformity], the Confession of Faith, I brought it with me [to Scotland] now in

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 259
print, as it wes offered to the Houses by the Assemblie, without considerable dis
sent of any. It's much cryed up by all, even many of our greatest opposites, as
the best Confession yet extant ; it's expected the Houses shall pass it, as they did the
Directorie, without much debate. Howbeit, the retarding partie hes put the
Assemblie to add Soriptures to it, which they omitted only to eschew the offence of
the House, whose practice hitherto hes been to enact nothing of religion on divine
right or soripturall grounds, but upon their own authoritie alone. This innovation
of our opposites may weell oost the Assemblie some time, who cannot doe the most
easie things with any expedition ; but it will be for the advantage and strength of
the work" (vol. iii, p. 2). Cf. June 2," 1647 (pp. 5, 6). Speech in the General
Assembly at Edinburgh, August 6, 1647 : ".Right Honourable and Reverend, yow
remember, that all your ecclesiastick desyres from your brethren of England, that
all the commissions and instructions laid upon us your servants, were only for the
obtaining of Uniformitie in four particulars, — in the Worship of God, in the Gov
ernment of the Church, in a Confession of Faith, and Catechisme  In your
third desyre,' the Lord made our successe no less prosperous ; a large Confession of
Faith is perfyted with farr greater unanimitie than any living could have hoped for,
among so many learned divines, in so distempered a place and distracted a season .
I am confident, if the judgment of many my wiser do not deceave, this piece of
work is so fine and excellent, that whenever yow shall be pleased to look upon
it, the sight of it shaU draw from the most censorius eye, a good acceptation " (p.
11; cf. p. 12). Under date of September 1, 1647, giving account of the Scotch
General Assembly : " We agreed .... after much debate in the Committee, to>
the Confession of Faith" (p. 20).
A word in conclusion as to the title of the volume thus pre
pared is perhaps not out cf place. The Assembly of Divines quite
constantly speak of it in their minutes, from the beginning, as " a
Confession of Faith," or, after it was begun, " the Confession of
Faith." The term was doubtless derived from the Solemn League
and Covenant, which enumerates, among the items in which uni
formity should be sought between the two nations, " Confession
of Faith." Meanwhile, however, the work of its preparation was
prosecuted without formally setting upon a title for the completed
book. On the 3d of September, 1646, as it was approaching
completion, it was " Ordered— The Committee for the perfecting of
the Confession of Faith do prepare a title for it;" and on Septem
ber 24 this duty was apparently laid specifically on Dr. Burgess.
On September 25 the report upon the title came in, " and it was
Ordered— This to be the title : ' To the HonWe the House of Com
mons assembled in Parliament, The humble Advice of the Assem
bly of Divines, now by authority of Parliament sitting at West
minster, concerning part of a Confession of Faith.' " To the
completed Confession also a like title was assigned : and it was under
this title that the Confession was printed in the first instance.
The title thus suggested, however, did not meet with the approval
of the House of Commons. It seemed to it, as Eushworth
tells us * that nothing was practically a Confession which did not
* See Mitchell in Minutes, 416.

260 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
take the form of "I confess " at the beginning of each section,
and, moreover, that it were well to keep up the usage established
by the Thirty-nine Articles ; and so they altered the title to
" Articles of Faith agreed upon by both Houses of Parliament,"
or rather to ' ' Articles of Christian religion approved and passed
by both Houses of Parliament after advice had with the Assembly
of Divines " — under which latter title they published the Confes
sion with the slight alterations they had made in it, in the summer
of 1648.* The adoption of the earlier title by the Church of
Scotland in its previous action, together with the failure of the
whole movement in England, has secured that the work has lived
under the simple title of ' ' The Confession of Faith ' ' : and it is as
such that it is known among ail the Churches which still adhere
to- it. II. — The Formulation of the Third Chaptee.
The third chapter of the Confession of Faith, having been pre
pared in first draft by the Committee appointed for that service
(May 12, 1645), passed through the hands of the First Great Com
mittee (July 16, 1645) to the Assembly. It was reported from
this Committee on August 29, 1645 (Friday), and the Assembly at
once entered into debate upon it. Debate is mentioned as being
held upon it August 29, September 2, 3, [8], 9, 11, October 3, 17,
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, [30], 31, November 3, 6, 7, 11. In the mean-
time portions of the chapter were twice, at least, (September 3 and
November 6) recommitted — doubtless (for such seems to have
been the Assembly's custom) to special Committees : and on five
occasions (September [8], 9, 11, October 3, 17, 21) the original
•Committee brought in additional reports. In the subsequent
reviewing of the Confession as passed, the third chapter was
•debated again on Thursday and Friday, June 18, 19, 1646, before
it was finally ordered. It appears, further, that Mr. Whitaker, a
member of the Committee of Eeview, appointed December 8,
1645, but acting apparently on his own behalf alone on this occa
sion, moved an additional alteration in the chapter on September
23, 1646, and this naturally caused some further debate. The text
was now, however, finally passed from. The proof-texts for the chap
ter were debated on January [13], 19, 20, 21, 1647. and after having
been considered by the reviewing Committee appointed March 5,
1647, were finally passed on by the Assembly, April 6, 1647.
Thus the text of the third chapter occupied the attention of the
Assembly somejaart of at least twenty separate days, besides all the
rime given to it in the various Committees through whose hands it
*Mitchell in Minutes, 416, and in Baird Lectures, 378-9 and 526 ; Shaw, I, 365.

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 261
or parts of it passed. The proof -texts similarly occupied the Assem
bly on some parts of at least four days in addition^to the care given
to them in Committee. It would not be excessive to say, in a word,
that a good portion of a month's public labor was given to this
chapter by the Assembly ; and certainly much more than this was
expended on it by its Committees.
The debates upon the chapter which are signalized in the
Minutes seem to have been especially careful and persistent :* and
they are perhaps unusually fully reported. We are not able to
trace them in full, to be sure, or even to ascertain all the points
on which they turned. But it is presumable that those mentioned
explicitly were of more importance than those passed over without
so much as an indication of the points on which they turned ; and
doubtless those recorded in some detail were the most important of
all. If we may assume so much, we are not without some hint as to
the matters about which most interest was felt, and the phraseology
of which was framed most carefully and in the fullest light. As
is usual in such cases, the real work of creating the chapter was of
course done in Committee ; and the chapter as finally passed by
the Assembly is obviously substantially what in the first instance
was reported by the Committee. The notes of debate are suffi
cient to certify us of that natural and almost inevitable fact. But
they also certify us that it was not passed by the Assembly with
out the most careful scrutiny or without many adjustments and
alterations, so that as passed it represents clearly the deliberate
and reasoned judgment of the Assembly as a whole.
This will at once be made evident by merely noting the special
points debate on which is signalized. They concern the title of the
chapter (August 29) ; the phrasing of the first section in no less than
six separate particulars (August 29) ; the whole form of statement
of the latter half of the second section (September 3 and 11) ;
the statement of reprobation in section three (November 3, 1645,
and September 23, 1646) : the whole fabric and especially the
retention of a particular phrase of the fifth section (October 3 and
17 1645) ; the entire structure of the sixth section (October 20, 21),
and, above all, che assertion of its last clause (October 22, 23, 24,
30, 31); the mode of statement of section seven (November
6, 7, 11) ; and at least the phraseology of section eight (June 18,
1646). It must be borne in mind that this is but a partial list
of the topics debated ; the precise topic debated is not always
mentioned when the fact of a debate on chapter iii is, neverthe-
* Baillie says (November 25, 1645; II, p. 325): "We had long and tough
debates about the Decrees of Election ; yet thanks to God all is gone right accord
ing to our mind."

262 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
less, recorded ; and there is no reason to believe that when it is
mentioned it is always done with completeness. The record is
enough, however, to assure us that the debate was both extremely
searching and very comprehensive. This chapter did not leave
the Assembly's hands, we may feel sure, without having been con
formed in every particular to the Assembly's belief and even taste.
This will become even more apparent if we will attend to the
details debated, so far as the record enables us to follow them. It
is quite clear that the report brought in by the Committee, while
framed with independence and special theological knowledge and
skill, was yet based upon the Irish Articles, and in places followed
them very closely — though elsewhere breaking away from them
and striking out a new path. The knowledge of this fact will
enable us now and again to reconstruct the form of the language
in the original report, and so to follow the lines of the debate
somewhat more closely than would otherwise be possible from the
meagre hints of the record.
1. For example, when we are told in the minutes of August 29,
1645, that debate on this chapter was first joined " upon the
title," we shall be wise to remind ourselves that the title of the cor
responding Article in the Irish Articles ran : "Of God's Eternal
Decree and Predestination," and that it is therefore extremely likely
that it was reported to the Assembly in some such form. We
note accordingly with interest that in the distribution of the heads
of the Confession to the three great Committees which was made
on July 16, this head reads ' ' God' s decrees, Predestination, Elec
tion, etc." It is altogether likely, therefore, that when this chap
ter came to the Assembly it bore a title somewhat like that of the
Irish Articles, " Of God's Eternal Decree and Predestination "
and that the Assembly curtailed this to the simpler " Of God's
Eternal Decree ; ' ' although, of course, it is possible, on the other
hand, that it was the simpler title that it bore, and what happened
in the Assembly was that it was queried whether the longer title
of the earlier Articles were not better restored. This Irish title
was not exactly tautological ; for in the prevailing speech of the
time the term "Predestination" was commonly limited to the
soteriological decree, so that in the Irish title the collocation really
is equivalent to " Of God's general and special decree," or "Of
God's cosmical and soteriological decree." Even the threefold
enumeration made in the designation of the topic in the act dis
tributing the heads of the Confession to the Committees, would
not be incapable of defense on the ground of progressive advance
from the more general to the more specific. It was not uncus
tomary at the time, however, to look upon the word " Predestina-

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 263
tion " as so much a synonym of ' ' Election, ' ' that it embodied all
its precious connotations — a fact which underlies the discrimination
between the terms " predestinate " and " foreordain " as used in
the third and fourth sections, which otherwise would be puzzling.
However accordant with current usage it was, it might well have
seemed, therefore, desirable to avoid the formal and unexplained
treatment of Predestination as a more inclusive word than Election.
Even the Irish heading might seem, indeed, to some, although not
essentially tautological, yet to bear so nearly the formal appear
ance of tautology as to be oifensive to the severer taste represented
in the Assembly. The choice of the brief and simple " Of God's
Eternal Decree ' ' surely seems, in any event, to do the Assembly
credit : it is as terse and simple as all the rest of its work and may
be looked upon as a fair indication of its temper and taste alike.
We might be tempted to suppose that in the debate on the title
of the chapter another point would be raised — whether the singu
lar or plural form should be used — " Of God's Eternal Decree,"
or " Of God's Eternal Decrees."* On October 20, when the sixth
section of the chapter was under discussion, a question involved
in this difference was under debate, and some difference of opinion
on the matter was developed. There is no hint, however, that the
question was raised when the title of the chapter was under discus
sion ; and the very occurrence and especially the nature of the
subsequent debate render it difficult to suppose that the same
subject had already been threshed out so short a while before. It
seems altogether likely that the debate on the title was confined,
therefore, to its compass, and that the form "¦ Of God's Eternal
Decree ' ' was simply adopted, without question raised, from the
Irish Articles. How little importance was attached to the difference
between the singular and plural forms is evident not only from the
subsequent debate, in which indifference to it is manifested by the
strongest Calvinists in the body and it is generally treated as a ques
tion of language rather than of things ; but also from the circum
stance that though the singular form is consistently maintained in
the Confession, the plural is equally consistently maintained in the
Catechisms, both Larger and Shorter.f
* In the interesting discussion published in pages 185 sq. of his Theology of the
Westminster Symbols, Dr. Edward D. Morris appears to suggest something like this.
"An interesting discussion," he says, "seems to have arisen in the Assembly
respecting the use of the singular or the plural term, decree or decrees, in the expo
sition of this general doctrine." There is, however, no indication of any such dis
cussion having occurred on the title : the debate adverted to by Dr. Morris was
upon the sixth section and concerned directly another matter— as will be seen
below. The Westminster divines obviously attached very little importance to this
mere matter of phraseology.
f The loosely kept notes which we have of the Minutes are too carelessly written

264 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
2. Our knowledge that the Irish Articles underlay the draft sent
in to the Assembly is of yet more aid to us in understanding the
debates that are noted as having taken place on the first section of
the chapter (August 29, 1645). These are hinted at in the Min
utes as follows : " Debate about the word ' counsel,' about those
words ' most holy wise,' and about those words ' his own.' Debate
about that word ' time,' about the word ' should.' Debate about
the transposing." Not all these words occur in the section as
passed : "bat they are explicable from the Irish Articles. We
need only to assnme that the first half of the section as at first
reported was more similar to the Irish Articles than it became in
the course of the debate. It probably ran as follows : " God
from all eternity did, by the most holy and wise counsel of His-
own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever in time
should come to pass." In the process of the debate the word
" counsel " was scrutinized and retained : the adjectives " holy "
and " wise " were transposed ; " His own " was scrutinized and
retained ; and the last clause after careful scrutiny of its phrase
ology was exchanged to the simpler " whatsoever comes to pass."
Thus the form that was adopted was arrived at : " God from all
eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will,
freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass." That
the changes thus made were improvements we can scarcely doubt :
the order ' ' wise and holy ' ' is the order of na*ture as well as
climax, in its progress from the intellectual to the moral perfec
tions; while the new concluding clause is not only simpler and
free from apparent but fictitious limitation, but avoids raising
puzzling questions as to what are to be classed as pre- or extra-
temporal and what. as temporal acts*
What is intended by " the transposing," debate on which is-
noted, we have no means of confidently determining. It may
concern simply the transposition of the adjectives ' ' wise ' ' and
" holy," which we have already referred to. It may, on the other
hand, concern some other transposition of words as originally
reported of which we have no knowledge — or indeed some trans
position of the words as given us which was not carried out. We
note that the concluding words ' ' but rather established ' ' stand
to offer any testimony in such a matter. If we have counted correctly, the Third
Chapter is mentioned more or less formally by name ten times in the Minutes.
In five the plural is used (pp. 114, 126, 127, 322, 323); in five the singular (pp.
126, 129, 130, 245, 246).
* In the Larger Catechism, Q. 12, the words "in time" are retained : "God's-
decrees are the wise, free and holy acts of the counsel of his will, whereby, from all
eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes
to pass in time, especially concerning angels and men."

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 265
in the Irish Articles "but established rather": possibly the
reference is to this. It seems most probable, however, that it
refers to a transposition to a new section of the clause excluding
dependence of the decree on the Divine foresight, to the likelihood
of which we shall recur when speaking of the following section —
which, as we shall see, was originally a part of this section.
3. The second section of the Confession has nothing parallel to
it in the Irish Articles, which reserve the guarding of the inde
pendence of God's decree until they are dealing with specific or
soteriological predestination (§ 14). Without this aid we find our
selves naturally in difficulties as we essay to reconstruct its original
form. The chief notes in the Minutes concerning it are found in
the entries for September 3 and September 11. The former reads :
" Eeport from the first Committee about adding the word ' abso
lutely ' — debated. Absolutely without any [not being moved
thereunto by any]* foresight of anything without himself as a con
dition moving him thereunto. Ordered — This recommitted."
The latter reads : ' ' Eeport from the morning Committee that
they think the former vote of the Assembly sufficient to print ?
the conditional decree."
It is at least evident from these notes that the framing of this
section cost the Assembly some trouble. The new report from
the digesting Committee as to adding the word ' ' absolutely ' '
is proof that there had already been puzzled discussion of the
section. The recommitment of the matter, doubtless (as was
the wont of the Assembly) to a special Committee, exhibits its
dissatisfaction with its work so far. Probably between Septem
ber 3 and September 11 the matter had again been before the
Assembly, and the adjustment made which gives us our present
section : for the report of September 11 appears to have come
from a Committee meeting that morning, and seems to close the
matter by recommending the treatment of a so-called " condi
tional decree," as it then stood, for passage for printing. Cer
tainly the adjustment that was made was a good deal of a
triumph : we do not indeed know the wording of the whole sec
tion as originally reported, or at any former stage of the debate —
but the phrasing as ultimately agreed on is obviously a much finer
piece of work than anything could have been of which the phra
seology of the note of September 3 was a part. Is it too much
to conjecture that this clause, for which no appropriate place can
bs found in section 2 as passed, was originally only a part of the
first section— coming, perhaps, in between the first and second
clauses of that section ? In that case the sentence would have
* The words here placed in brackets stand in the Mmutes above the line.

266 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
read : ' ' God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel
of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever
comes to pass, without any foresight of anything without himself
as a condition moving him thereunto: yet so as thereb}', etc."
The stages of procedure would, in that case, be as follows : First,
it was sought to strengthen the statement by inserting " abso
lutely " before "without." Then it was queried whether the
" any " might not be better omitted. Then a new phraseology
was tried : instead of " absolutely without foresight of anything,"
it was proposed to read " not being moved thereto by any fore
sight of anything." It was finally seen that the trouble lay
deeper than any adjustment of mere phraseology could cure ; that
the proposed addition to the Irish statement at this point hopelessly
overweighted the sentence. The knot was then happily cut by
relieving the sentence of the addition altogether and erecting a new
section, which then it was comparatively easy to phrase happily.
And, as we have already hinted, perhaps it is this transposition
that was debated, but not determined, on August 29.
It is so far in favor of this general supposition that it is alto
gether likely that an attempt would first be made to include the
whole doctrine of the general or cosmical decree in one section, as
had been done in the Irish Articles ; and the relieving of the heavy
sentence which thence resulted would be apt to be an afterthought.
And it seems to be brought, in this general sense at least, out of
the region of conjecture into that of ascertained fact by a note
in the minutes of September 8 : " Dr. Gouge offered a report of
an addition, though the Committee was not a full number, but 7.
He read it ; but the Assembly thought not fit to meddle with it,
because they were not a Committee. The addition was, without
respect to anything foreseen, to be added after freely and un
changeably." These words occur in the first section, which, accord
ingly, it was proposed to read thus : ' ' God from all eternity did, by
the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchange
ably, without respect to anything foreseen, ordain whatsoever comes
to pass. ' ' The proposal brought by Mr. Gouge is evidently a substi
tute for the heavy clause that was debated and recommitted on
September 3, and accordingly that clause too was a part of the first
section. The main result, in any event, of our scrutiny of the section is
to advertise to us the importance which was attached by the
Assembly to the proper guarding of the doctrine of the decree.
This they sought to accomplish by adding in some fit way to the
statement of the Irish Articles a clause explicitly affirming the
independence of the decree— or, as has actually resulted in the

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 267
event, fully setting forth the relation of the decree to the divine
knowledge. 4.^ So far as the Minutes record, there was very little debate on
sections 3 and 4, which, again, together represent a single section
in the Irish Articles (§ 12). We read indeed in the notes for
October 3: "Eeport additional to the article of Predestination.
Debate about it." It is possible that this may refer to section 3,
in which the term " predestinated " occurs for the first time, and
in which the thing, as currently defined (of specific or soteriolog
ical predestination), for the first time emerges. On the other
hand, however, the term may be used in a still narrower sense and
the reference be to section 5, where the doctrine of election is
discussed in its details. And it is almost equally possible that
it is used in its broadest sense and refers to the chapter as a
whole. The sequence of notices runs as follows : August 29,
1645, "Debate on the report of ... . God's decree;" Sep
tember 2, "proceed in the debate of the report of decrees;"
September 9, " report concerning God's decree;" September 11,
¦" proceed in the debate about the decree;" October 3, "report
additional to the article of Predestination ;" October 17, " debate
upon the report concerning Predestination " [when § 5 was
debated] ; November 6, " the paragraph concerning Eeprobation
referred to the Committee, to make report to-morrow morning;"
November 7, " Eeport made about Eeprobation ; " November 11,
*l Debate the report of Eeprobation" [when § 7 was debated].
The appearance is rather strong that under the term " Predesti
nation " the portion of the chapter that treats of soteriological
predestination, or more particularly §§ 3-6, was intended.
There can be little doubt that the entry in the Minutes of
November 3 : " Debate about leaving out those? words, ' fore
ordained to everlasting death,' " refers to section 3 : though it is,
of course, not absolutely impossible (though most unlikely) that
coming in at this late point in the debate, it may refer to a phrase
originally in section 7, and omitted as the result of this debate.
The likelihood of its reference to section 3 is moreover distinctly
increased by an entry at a much later date — after the Confession, in
fact, had been completed, and was ready to be sent up to Parliament.
In the Minutes for September 23, 1646, we read : "Mr. Whitakers
moved an alteration in these words in the chapter of Predestina
tion, viz., ' and some ordained to everlasting death.'* It was
debated, and upon debate it was Resolved upon the Q., The words
* Dr. Mitchell notes that in the additional copy of the Minutes lapping at this
part, which he calls Fascicle III, the words stand : "and some /weordained to
everlasting death."

26 i THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
shall stand without alteration. Mr. Whitakers enters his dissent."
It can scarcely be doubted that the words in which Mr. Whita
ker desired some alteration are the closing words of section 3 ; and
the suggestion will perhaps present itself that he was only per
sisting at this final opportunity in pressing the desire of those
who wished these words omitted in the earlier debate (November
3, 1645). It certainly is not said that Mr. Whitaker wished the
words omitted, but only that " he moved an alteration in these
words " — and what alteration he desired we have no means of ascer
taining. And it would appear that he met with little or no support
for his proposition. The Assembly not only rejected his motion,
but he alone entered dissent. But it is at least not impossible
that he was here only carrying to its latest stage the debate of
November 3 for the omission of these words.
In that case, we should learn that there were some in the
Assembly — or perhaps only one, as Mr. Whitaker is alone in his
dissent on September 23, 1646, and may have been equally alone
in the contention of November 3, 1645 — who desired that the doc
trine of reprobation should not be so sharply stated in section 3.
What their — or his — reasons for so desiring were, we do not
know* But we should equally learn that the Assembly was not
only decided, but we may say unusually decided in its deter
mination to have the doctrine of reprobation clearly asserted in this
its appropriate place in the Confession. We must not fail to
observe that the matter was pressed to a vote, to the sharpest of
decisions, and to a recorded dissent : and we must not fail to note
the significance of this. Says Dr. Mitchell :f " So far as appears
from the minutes, the various articles of the Confession were
passed by the Assembly all but unanimously. On some occasions,
when dissent was indicated, even by one or two of the members,
the wording of the article they objected to was so modified as to
satisfy them. The main occasions on which this policy was not
followed were on 4th September, 1645, with regard to Dr. Bur-
* Whitaker was a high Calvinist (see below, p. 271), but beyond that we know
too little of his personal opinions to permit ourselves any conjectures as to his posi
tion on the special point here raised. He left little in print behind him : Brook
(Lives of the Puritans, III, 190 sq. ) supposes that only a few occasional sermons were
published by him, and names only three. He was a Cambridge Master of Arts, and a
good scholar and unremitting in his labors as a preacher. See also Mr. Lupton's-
notice in the Dictionary of National Biography, sub.nom. It is illustrative of how
little even the best scholars keep in mind the most important matters of Puritan
(Presbyterian) history in England tbat Mr. Lupton can print such a sentence as
this : " When the Westminster Assembly of Divines was convened in June, 1643
he was one of the first members elected, and iu 1647 was appointed Moderator.''
Yet he had Brook's notice before his eyes (p. 191).
f Baird Lectures, p. 373.

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 269
gess' dissent from the resolution of the Assembly to leave out the
word' Blessed,' retained both in the English and Irish Articles,
before the name of the Virgin Mother of our Lord ; on 23d Sep
tember, 1646, with regard to Mr. Whitaker's dissent from the
words ' foreordained to everlasting death ; ' and on 21st October,
1646, with regard to the dissent of several of the Independents
from the insertion in a Confession of Faith of certain parts of § 3,
chap, xxiii." We must esteem the clear and firm statement of
the doctrine of foreordination to death, therefore, a matter
which the Assembly deemed of the highest importance. When it
was proposed to omit the words (November 3, 1645) the proposi
tion was defeated : and when, at the eleventh hour, Mr. Whitaker
returned to the charge and proposed at least some alteration in
the words, it was resolved shortly : " The words shall stand with
out alteration," and Mr. Whitaker was left to enter his dissent.
It is very clear that the Assembly by a very large majority — doubt
less, in this case too, practically unanimously — deemed that import
ant concerns were guarded by these words.
It is noteworthy that no debates and no dissents are noted on § 4.
5. Only the slightest hint of debate on section 5 is pre
served. We have already observed the possibility, but hardly
probability, of the notice of debate on ' ' the article of Predestina
tion " mentioned on Oclober 3, 1645, referring to the fifth section.
If that be set aside we have only the entry of October 17 : " Eeport
from the first Committee concerning Predestination  Debate
upon the report of the first Committee concerning Predestination.
Debate about those words, ' unto everlasting glory,' whether they
be not superfluous." The words were retained — to the enrich
ment of the statement. But the raising of the question of their
superfluity is another indication of the severe terseness of the
style given by the Assembly to this chapter — in contrast with the
greater elaborateness, if not exactly elaboration, of the language
of the underlying Irish Articles.
6. It was about the sixth section, however — the section in which
is concentrated the ordo salutis of the Westminster divines — that
debate most gathered. From before October 20 to October 31
the Assembly was occupied with this great statement, and every
element of it was subjected to the closest scrutiny. Especially did
the discussion expand around the three points of the unity of the
decree and the relation respectively of the decrees concerning the
fall and redemption to the decree of election. We do not know
precisely when debate on this section was first begun. The first
notice of it (October 20) runs already : " Proceed in the debate
about permission of man's fall ; about ' the same decree.' ' Nor

270 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
can we reconstruct in its entirety the original form of the section.
It seems to have begun somewhat thus : "As God hath appointed
the elect unto glory, so hath He, to bring this to pass, ordained by
the same decree to permit man to fall, etc.;" and the debate first
turned on the phrase " the same decree," and then on the phrase
" to bring this to pass." To meet the objection to the former
phrase, for which he would not contend — for, said he, ' ' when that
word is left out, is it not' a truth, and so every one may enjoy
his own sense ' ' — Mr. Gillespie proposed that the statement should
be modified so as to read : "As God hath appointed the elect
unto glory, so hath He for the same end ordained to permit
man to fall." This involved, however, the retention, in other
language, of the idea involved in the phrase " to bring this to
pass," which the Assembly was not disposed to insist on. A
formula offered by Mr. Eeynolds on October 2 1 accordingly found
more favor. It runs as follows : ' ' As God hath appointed the
elect unto glory, so hath He by the same eternal and most free
purpose of His will foreordained all the means thereunto, which
He in His counsel is pleased to appoint for the executing of that
decree ; wherefore they who are endowed with so excellent a
benefit, being fallen in Adam, are called in according to God's
purpose." This formula preserves the mention of the fall of
Adam, as had just been ordered, but also the phrase " the same
decree," which had been debated but the omission of which was
not yet determined fully on, and meets by a happy turn the deter
mination that the words "to bring this to pass" should not
stand. Whether, however, this formula was simply (as we have
presumed) the original formula, modified to meet these orderings,
or an entirely new one wrought out by Mr. Eeynolds himself, we
have no sure means of determining. Immediately after the entry :
" Mr. Eeynolds offered something, " with the text as given above,
it is added : " Mr. Chambers offered something " — but no hint is
given of what it was, possibly because the differing reception
given to the propositions of the two advertised the scribe that it
was Mr. Eeynolds' and not Mr. Chambers' offering that would
form the basis of subsequent debate. In any event, Mr. Eey
nolds' paper appears to register the results of the debate so far,
and to lay the basis for farther advance.
So far, we may say then, two things had been settled about this
section : it should mention the fall of Adam and it should not insist
on emphasizing the unity of the divine decree. In both matters the
decision had been arrived at in the interest of what we may call,
perhaps, comprehension— though this must be understood, of
course, as a generic Calvinistic and not universalistic Christian com-

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 271
prehension. The Assembly had been led in this policy by the
strictest Calvinists in the body. The sharp assertion of the same
ness of the decree ordaining both the end and the means (for it was
on this point of the unity of the decree alone that the debate turned)
was advocated by Mr. Seaman, who seems to be most concerned
about the possible misapprehension of the omission ; by Mr. Whit
aker, who takes the high ground that it is true, and therefore would
best be expressed — an indication, by the way, of the sound Calvin
ism of the man who later was so strenuous to have some alteration
(we know not what, but surely from this we can infer no anti-Calvin-
istio one) made in the last words of the third section ; and by Mr.
Palmer, who fears to be brought into a worse snare by leaving it out
than could arise from inserting it. Mr. Seaman urged that ' ' if those
words, ' in the same decree,' be left out, will involve us in a great
debate ; " that ' ' all the odious doctrine of Arminians is from
their distinguishing of the decrees, but our divines say they are
one and the same decree ; " that the censure the Eemonstrants lay
under for making two decrees concerning election would lie equally
against making two decrees of the end and means. Mr. Whita
ker simply urged that with reference to time all decrees are
" simul and semel; in eterno there is not prior and posterior ;" that
though the conceptions of the Divines were very various about the
decrees, there was no reason why the truth should not be frankly
asserted. The other side, was taken by men like Eutherford, Gil
lespie, Gouge, Eeynolds and Calamy. They did not deny the truth
meant to be expressed in the phrase " the same decree," but rather
unanimously affirmed it. But the keynote of their discussion was
expressed by Gillespie when he said: " When that word is left
out, is it not a truth, and so every man may enjoy his own sense,"
and by Eeynolds when he remarked : "Let us not put in disputes
and scholastic things into a Confession of Faith. ' ' Obviously it was
generic Calvinism they were intent on asserting and not any par
ticular variety of it. And this is given point to by another inci
dent of the debate. Besides the mere phrase " the same decree,"
its sameness was asserted in the original draft by the concatena
tion of the clauses. We do not know precisely how its language
ran at first : but apparently it was, as we have seen, something
like this : " As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath
He to bring this to pass ordained by the same decree to permit
man to fall "-and so on enumerating the several steps m the ordo
decretorum. "I question," remarked Mr. Calamy " that < to
bring this to pass ;' we assert massa pura in this. I desire that
nothing be put in one way or other ; it makes the fall of man to
he medium executions decreti." It was in the same sense that

272 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
Eutherford wished to amend by saying simply " God hath also
decreed." " It is very probable but one decree," he added, " but
whether fit to express it in a Confession of Faith  " A
remark of Gillespie's would seem to show that he was not quite
willing to yield in this matter ; let there be no dispute indeed about
a word, he seems to say — but the matter involved is another thing :
" Say, ' For the same end God hath ordained to permit man to
fall.' .... This shows that in ordine naturx God ordaining man
to glory goes before His ordaining to permit man to fall." The
appearance is that Gillespie desired the Confession to be com
mitted not indeed to the supralapsarian position — for that occupies
narrower ground than his words need to imply — but to the inclu
sion of the fall of Adam explicitly in the means to glorification.
Counsels of moderation thus prevailing as the result of this
debate of Monday (October 20), the Assembly listened on Tues
day morning (October 21) to the " report made from the first Com
mittee sitting before the Assembly," and resolved " that mention
be made of man's fall ;" and " that those words, ' to bring this
to pass,' shall not stand." That is to say, it resolved to include
man's fall within the decree of God, but not to assert it to be
means to the end of glorification. It was then that Mr. Eeynolds'
statement as already quoted was brought before them and the
debate commenced afresh from this new beginning. By what
process this statement was ultimately reduced to the exquisite
formula that was finally passed we are not informed. Considerable
adjustment was needed. The first sentence required the omission
not only of the word " same," bat also of its whole concluding
clause : ' ' which He in His counsel is pleased to appoint for the
executing of that decree " — a redundancy which must have been
intolerable to this tersely speaking Assembly. Similarly, while
the structure of the second section is adopted, and, of course, the
happy phrase— cutting all knots—" being fallen in Adam," the
language is wholly recast in the interests of clear and succinct
statement : thus the long clause (derived from the English Articles)
" who are endowed with so excellent a benefit " gives way to the
simple " who are elected;" and the Scriptural " called according
to God's purpose" to the more technical "effectually called"
with an additional definition of that unto which they are called and
by what divine agency. Thence the statement proceeds through
the items of the ordo salutis. So far as we can trace it, this is the
history of the formulation of this beautiful section— wise in its
insertions and omissions alike.
There remains, however, a very important clause of the section
about which apparently the keenest and certainly the most fully

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 273
sported of all the debates on this chapter was held — the final
sntence of the section, which affirms : ' ' Neither are any other
adeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified,
nd saved, but the elect only." The discussion of this statement
/as formally ordered at the close of the session on Tuesday, Octo
ber 21, 1645 : " Ordered — To debate the business about Eedemp-
ion of the elect only by Christ to-morrow morning." The debate,
>egun Friday morning, October 22, and continued at least to Octo-
>er 31, constitutes one of the most notable debates reported in the
\finutes, and certifies us that the closing sentence of the sixth sec-
ion is one of the most deliberate findings of the Assembly.
The protagonist in the debate was Mr. Calamy, who opened it
vith the enunciation of what is known as the " Hypothetical Uni-
rersalistic " schema — a well-guarded expression of this theory, cer-
iainly, and even, perhaps, a somewhat modified expression of it,
rat also a clearly-cut and fully developed enunciation of universal
•edemption with limited application. " I am far from univer
sal redemption in the Arminian sense, ' ' he said ; ' ' but that that I
lold is in the sense of our divines in the Synod of Dort, that
Dhrist did pay a price for all — absolute intention for the elect,
jonditional intention for the reprobate in case they do believe —
;hat all men should be salvabiles, non obstante lapsu Adami ....
;hat Jesus Christ did not only die sufficiently for all, but God did
intend, in giving of Christ, and Christ in giving Himself, did
.ntend to put all men in a state of salvation in case they do
believe." Again, " The Arminians hold that Christ did pay a
price for this intention only, that all men should be in an equal
state of salvation. They say Christ did not purchase any impe-
:ration  This universality of E[edemption] ' ' — that is, of
jourse, that which he, in opposition to this Arminian construction,
advocates — ' ' doth neither intrude upon either the doctrine of special
slection or special grace." Still again : " In the point of election,
[ am for special election ; and for reprobation, I am for massa cor
ruptee  Those to whom He . .'. . by virtue of Christ's death,
there is ea administrate of grace to the reprobate, that they do wil
fully damn themselves." If we were to take these statements just as
bhey stand, we should probably be obliged to say that Calamy's posi
tion was characterized by the following points : 1. It denied the Ar
minian doctrine of a universal redemption for all men alike, without
exception, on condition of faith, which faith is to be man's own act
by virtue of powers renewed through a universal gift of sufficient
arace. 2. It" denied equally the Amyraldian doctrine of a uni
versal redemption for all men alike, without exception, on condition
oi 'faith, which faith, however, is the product of special grace

274 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
given to the elect alone, so that only the elect can fulfill the con
dition. 3. It affirmed a double intention on Christ's part in His
work of redemption— declaring that He died absolutely for the
elect and conditionally for the reprobate. Theologically his posi
tion, which has its closest affinities with the declarations of the
English Divines at Dort, was an improvement upon the Amyral-
dian ; but logically it was open, perhaps, to all the objections which
were fatal to it as well as to others arising from its own lack of
consistency. Both sets of objections were made to tell upon it in the
debate. For example, the fundamental objection to all schemes
of conditional redemption, that it is inapplicable to more than
a moiety of the human race, was early pressed upon him
with telling effect. Mr. Palmer asked subtly : "I desire to know
whether he will understand it de omni homme'1'1 — i.e., whether
Christ died for every man — of all sorts and in all conditions — only
conditionally on the exercise of faith. Mr. Calamy must have
felt hard pressed indeed when he answered simply, " De adultis.,y
Where, then, shall those that die in infancy appear ? On the
other hand, Mr. Eeynolds struck a deadly blow at the peculiar
form which Mr. Calamy had given his doctrine when he remarked
that to assert that Christ, besides dying absolutely for the elect, ,
died also conditionally for the reprobate — in case they do believe —
is to say He died for them " upon a condition that they cannot
perform, and God never intends to give them." It cannot seem
strange to us, therefore, that Mr. Calamy was not able to preserve
in the debate his somewhat artificial middle position, and is found
arguing roundly for universal redemption of all and several, with
out distinction, at least in the Amyraldian sense.
To Calamy's aid in the debate there came Messrs. Seaman, Mar
shall and Yines : while he was opposed by Palmer, Eeynolds, Gil
lespie, Eutherford, Wilkinson, Burgess, Lightfoot, Price, Goodwin
and Harris. On the first day the debate turned on the ordo decre-
torum. Gillespie held it firmly to this broader question, and from
that point of view — " that there is a concatenation of the death of
Christ with the decrees " — asked significantly " a parte post what
follows upon that conditional redemption.' ' On the authority of the
Dordrechtan divines, to whom Calamy had appealed, Eeynolds
explained that " the Synod intended no more than to declare the
sufficiency of the death of Christ ; it is a pretium in se, of suffi
cient value to all — nay, ten thousand worlds," and that "to be
salvable is a benefit, and therefore belongs only to those that have
an interest in Christ." On the second day the debate turned rather
on the Scriptural argument, and Calamy rested his case on the

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 275
wo texts, John iii. 16 and Mark xvi. 15. From the former he
irgued that it was on account of the love of God for the world at
arge, not for the elect only, that Christ came— as the " whosoever
>elieveth " sufficiently indicates. From the latter he argued that
i universal redemption is requisite to give verity to the universal
)ffer. ^ Those who essayed to answer him exhibit minor differences,
sspecially in the detailed exegesis of John iii. 16. Gillespie and
Rutherford understand that when it is said God so loved the world,
t is the elect scattered everywhere in the world that are intended :
-ightfoot and Harris understand that "the world" in contra-
listinction from the Jews is meant ; and Price very wisely remarks
hat even if mankind at large be meant it does not at ali follow
hat Christ died equally and alike for every individual— there is no
nconsequence in saying that it was because of His love for the
vorld that He gave His very life for the multitudes He chose out
>f this world to save. However the term" the world'" be taken,
herefore, the result of the debate showed that no conclusion could
>e drawn from this text to the universality of redemption. As to
tfark xvi. 15, Eutherford pointed out at once that the argument
hat the universality of the offer of the Gospel necessarily inferred
nrecedent universality of redemption as its ground was obviously
msound inasmuch as it proved too much — the same argument is
:qually applicable to, say, justification. The promise of justifica-
ion is as much included in the Gospel as the promise of redemp-
ion : shall we say, then, that we cannot preach the Gospel to all
:xcept on the supposition of a precedent universal justification ?
Po this Mr. Seaman could reply only by repeating the shibboleth
hat what Christ did was to make all men only salvable, as Adam
tad made all men damnable — which one cannot believe was much
>f an aid to the cause he was advocating, as it involved a seriously
aw view of the effect of Adam's fall as well as of Christ's
edemption : surely there were few in the Assembly who would
ssent to the proposition that the whole effect of Adam's sin
73,3 to render men liable to be condemned, instead of bringing
hem under actual condemnation, and the whole effect of Christ's
rork was to render men capable of salvation, instead of actually
aving them. Gillespie, however, as was usual with that brilliant
oung man, put his finger here, too, on the technical flaw in Cala-
ly's reasoning by insisting on the distinction between the voluntas
ecreti and voluntas mandati: " The command doth not hold oat
rod's intentions ; otherwise God's command to Abraham con-
3rning sacrificing of his son  " Mr. Marshall, who with
[r. Vines gave a support to Mr. Calamy which was evidently as
ffective and wire as that of Mr. Seaman seems the opposite,

276 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
icutely replies to this that " there is not only a mandatum but a
promise ' ' — but obviously this was a good rejoinder rather than
i solid distinction. The weight of the debate was clearly on the
lide of the proposition proposed, and on that score alone we can-
lot feel surprise that it was retained in the Confession.
The interest of the debate to us lies in the revelation which it
rives us of the presence in the Assembly of an influential and able,
rat apparently small, body of men whose convictions lay in the
lirection of the modified Calvinism which had been lately pro-
nulgated by Cameron and Amyraut for the express purpose of
inding a place for a universal redemption in the Calvinistic sys-
em. For the origin of this party Dr. Mitchell* would point us
o English sources : but Baillie especially mentions Amyraut in
his connection ; f and it would seem that it was Amyraut and
Cameron — both of whom Gillespie mentions in this debate — whom
nen had especially in mind during the discussion ; and it would
eem further to be clear that while the adherents of this univer-
alistic view of the atonement in the Assembly held it with Brit-
sh moderation, and were not prepared to go all lengths with the
Trench divines who had lately promulgated it with such force,
hey yet looked upon them as of their school and sought support
rom them. The result of the debate was a refusal to modify the
Jalvinistic statement in this direction — or perhaps we should
ather say the definitive rejection of the Amyraldian views
,nd the adoption of language which was precisely framed to
xclude them. Dr. Mitchell, reviving an old contention, suggests
ndeed that unless the clause of the Confession in question be read
lisjunctively rather than, as it is actually phrased, conjunctively,
t will not operate for the exclusion of Amyraldians4 It is not
learly obvious, however, that the word "and" here binds the
everal items of the enumeration so closely together as to make it
ppear that all that is affirmed is only that the whole of this
irocess takes place in the case of the elect only : the natural
ense of the clause is clearly that no one of the transactions
Lere brought together is to be affirmed of the non-elect. And this
mpression is increased by the broader context, not to speak of
* Minutes, p. iv. sq.
t And his Letters have a number of references to the Amyraldian controversy and
he pressing need of a telling refutation of Amyraut, which cannot mean anything
lse than that it was from him that the Assembly felt that the dissenting opinions
manated. X Minutes, p. Mi. This contention, together with the other expedients which
ave been made use of by advocates of universal atonement to explain away the
lonfessional statement, is judiciously examined by Dr. Cunningham in his Histori-
al Theology, II, 327 sq.

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 277
he parallel passages in viii. 3 and 5.* It might seem somewhat
lore to the point, possibly, to recall that in this section the lan-
;uage is so ordered as to seem to deal with the actual ordo salutis
ather than directly with the ordo decretorum. It is asserted that
he ordo salutis is the result of the decreeing of the means by
rhich the elect are brought to glory. But what is subsequently
sserted is that none but the elect are (actually) redeemed by
Jhyist, effectually called, etc.— the mind being abstracted for the
tioment from the intention to the performance. The Westmin-
ter Amyraldians— if we may venture so to call them — had, of
ourse, freely admitted the distinction between the elect and non-
lect in the application : it was only in the impetration that they
Isputed it : and it might perhaps seem to them possible to con-
ess that though Christ had died for all, the merits of His death
tad actually been applied only to some, and to contend that only
his is actually expressed by saying that none but the elect " are
edeemed by Christ." Even this, however, appears more subtle
han satisfactory ; and in any event it would seem quite obvious that
he Assembly intended to state in this clause with adequate clear-
tess their reasoned and deliberate conviction that the decree of
lection lies behind the decree of the gift of Christ for redemption,
,nd that the latter is to be classed as one of the means for the exe-
ution of the decree of election. This is the definite exclusion of
he Amyraldian view, and anything that can be made really con-
istent with this conception of the ordo decretorum will be found
o differ fundamentally from Amyraldism.f
7. We first hear of the seventh section in the Assembly on
November 6, 1645 ; but then after such a fashion as to suggest
hat it had already been before the Assembly and perhaps may
lave been already somewhat debated. We read simply : "The
laragraph concerning Eeprobation referred to the Committee, to
aake report to-morrow morning." This was doubtless a special
* Dr. Cunningham remarks that the followers of Cameron made their contention
hat they were not condemned by the Synod of Dort turn precisely on the fact tbat
othing exactly like these clauses occurs in its Canons (loc. cit., p. 329, note).
t These debates are discussed with the care and prudence habitual to him by Dr.
litehell, pp. Iii. sq. of his Introduction to the Minutes; and he says the best
nd most that can be said in favor of the view that Amyraldism is not peremptorily
xcluded by the statements finally agreed on. They are also discussed in some
what the same spirit by Dr. E. D. Morris, op. cit., pp. 187 sq., with which should
e compared the remarks on pp. 382 sq. Dr. Morris, though claiming for the Amy-
ildians a right of existence under the "symbol," seems to be unable to free
imself of the suspicion that the letter of the symbol scarcely justifies it. We
muld heartily accord with such a conclusion— in both its elements. We have
[ready referred to Dr. Cunningham's discussion of the meaning of the Symbolic
eclarations (Hist. Theol., II, 327*?.).

!78 'IHE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
Committee, according to the wont of the Assembly in such in-
tances. On November 7 accordingly we read: " Eeport made
>y Mr. Eeynolds about Eeprobation." Then again on November
.1 we read: " Debate the report of Eeprobation  Debate
ibout that ' sovereign power.' " This is all that the Minutes tell
is about the passage of this important section through the Assem -
)]y : and this tells us practically nothing, except that it was care-
ully scrutinized and debated. We may conjecture that the debate
m the words ' ' sovereign power ' ' turned on the query whether some-
hing more or other than " power " might not wisely be indicated
,t this point : but this is mere conjecture, and we learn only that
he retention of the phrase just as it now stands was not inad
vertent but deliberate. The section is one of those which,
hough it has a point of suggestion in the Irish Articles, yet as
t stands is the independent product of the Assembly : and it cer-
ainly does credit to the Assembly by the combined boldness and
>rudence. faithfulness and tenderness of its sonorous language.*
* At p. 813 of Dr. E. D. Morris' Theology of the Westminster Standards we
sad the following sentences : " Some of the members [of the Westminster Assem-
ly] held with Calamy (Minutes, 153) that by virtue of the death of Christ there
3 an administration of grace even to the reprobate, so that they in rejecting such
race do willfully damn themselves as a massa corrupta. It is a fact of consider-
bie significance that, in deference to this opinion, it was proposed and somewhat
ebated in the Assembly to omit any statement respecting reprobation. This
roald have been in harmony with the course pursued in the framing of most of the
ontinental symbols, which are quite silent respecting the relation of the divine
ecree to those who reject the divine grace. The statement in the Confession
nally agreed upon (chap. Ill : vii.) simply declares that God, in the exercise of
lis sovereign power or dominion over his creatures, passes by the wicked and
inbelieving, and ordains them to disfavor and wrath for their sins, to the praise of
ds glorious justice.." This seems to say that the omission of chap. Ill, \ vii, was
iroposed and debated in the Assembly : and indeed the omission of all statements
especting reprobation. There is nothing in the Minutes or, so far as known to
is, in any witnessing document to justify such an affirmation. It would seem that
)r. Morris has fallen into an error here — poisibly through a misinterpretation of
he entries in the Minutes of propositions and debates concerning the language of
II : iii — of which we have spoken above (p. 267 sq.). This misinterpretation would
ie rendered easier by the circumstances that the former of these entries occurs in
be Minutes for November 3, and is noted by Dr. Mitchell on the margin as a
•debate on reprobation," while in the immediately next minute we have a refer-
nceto "the paragraph concerning Eeprobation," doubtless referring to \ 7, whioh
pas certainly under debate November 11. Nevertheless it is very plain that it is
3 that was debated on November 3 : and even if that were not so, there is no
;round for Dr. Morris' statement that "it was proposed and somewhat debated in
he Assembly to omit any statement respecting reprobation. ' ' To desire an ' ' alter-
tion in the words 'and some [fore-]ordained to everlasting death,' " or even the
mission *' of those words, ' fore-ordained to everlasting death ' "—the extent of the
lotices of the proposals and debates in question— is, certainly, something extremely
ifierent from proposing and debating the omission of " any statement respecting
eprobation." It is probably safe to say that the attribution to any Westminster

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 279
8. There is no debate signalized on section 8 in its first passage
hrough the Assembly. But when the chapter came back again
rom the perfecting Committee— June 18, 1646— we read : "The
Assembly proceeded in debate of the Article ' of God's Eternal
decree ;' and upon debate part of it was ordered. Upon debate
ibout the last clause of it, concerning the handling of the doctrine,
t was Resolved upon the Q., To refer this till to-morrow morn-
ng." We find nothing, however, on the subject in the Minutes
or June 19 beyond this : "The Assembly proceeded in the debate
)f the Confession of Faith ; and upon debate, that head ' of
xod's Eternal Decree' was ordered, and is as followeth  "
We are therefore only certified concerning this admirable section
hat it was the object of the care of the Assembly itself up to the
ast moment, without being informed what precisely in the course
)f its stately march engaged its latest attention.
From this survey, by means, as it were, of specimen bits of the
lebates during which the third chapter of the Confession as we
lave it was beaten out, we may obtain some sort of idea of the
abor and care expended on it by the Assembly. The survey is
jertainly calculated to enhance our idea of the deliberateness of its
ormulation. We have here no hasty draft, rushed through the
>ody at breakneck speed and adopted at the end on the credit of
he Committee that had drafted it. The third chapter of the
Confession is distinctly the work of the Assembly itself, and comes
o us as the well-pondered and thoroughly adjusted expression of the
iving belief of that whole body. The differences that existed be-
ween the members were not smoothed over in ambiguous language.
["hey were fully ventilated. Eoom was made for them when they
rere considered unimportant and mere apices logici: but when
hey concerned matters of moment, after full discussion, the doc-
rine of the Assembly — well-reasoned and fully thought out — as
istinguished from that of individuals, was embodied clearly and
.rmly in the document. The document as it stands is thus em-
ihatically the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly.
Ve cannot say that this or that clause represents this or that party
i the Assembly. There were parties in the Assembly, and they
rere all fully heard and what they said was carefully weighed. But
o merely party opinion was allowed a place in the document.
ian of a suggestion to omit all reference to reprobation from the Confession would
ave struck him as a calumny injurious to the soundness of his faith if not of hi3
itelligence. With reference to the attitude of the other Reformed symbols to repro-
ition see the January number of this Review, pp. 49 sq., especially pp. 121-126 :
le doctrine of reprobation is certainly not left without "any statement'- in "the
i03t" of them.

180 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.
iVhen it came to voting the statements there to be set down, the
Assembly as such spoke ; and in speaking it showed itself capable
if speaking its own mind. It is doing only mere justice to it, there-
ore, to read the document as the solemn and carefully framed
:xpression of its reasoned faith.
In the appended text (to follow on the succeeding pages) we
tave given, in the middle column, as nearly as we can make it
art the form in which the third chapter came before the Assembly
rom its Committee, marking in footnotes the chief amendments
vhich were made in it in the process of reducing the earlier draft
o the form in which it left the Assembly and has come down to ¦
ts. In order that the relations of this first reported text to the
rish Articles, on the one hand, and the completed Westminster
confession, on the other, may be easily apprehended, we have
irinted these two texts alongside of it, and we have sought so to
(resent them that the eye may easily unravel the historical con-
tections involved.
pbincetqn. Benjamin B. Warfield.

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. - 281

THE TEXT OF THE THIRD CHAPTER.

IRISH ARTICLES (1615).*
[. Of God's Eternal Decree
and Predestination.
(11) God, from all eternity,
d, by his unchangeable coun-
1, ordain whatsoever in time
lOUld come to pass : yet so as
ierehy no violence is offered
the wills of the reasonable
eatures, and neither the lib-
ty nor the contingency of the
cond causes is taken away,
it established rather.

COMMITTEE'S PROPOSAL.
Op God's Eternal Decree
[and Predestination] .{
[1] God from all eternity, did
by the most holy [and] wise1
counsel2 of His [own]2 will
freely and unchangeably3 or
dain whatsoever in time4
should come6 to pass, [2] with
out any foresight of anything
without himself as a condition
moving him thereunto :6 yetso,
as thereby neither is God the
author of sin, nor is violence
offered to the will of the crea
tures, nor is the liberty or con
tingency of second causes
taken away hut established
rather.

WESTMINSTER CONFES
SION, f
Or God's Eternal Decree.
1. GOD FROM ALL ETER
NITY DID, by the most wise
and holy counsel of his own
will, freely and unchangeably
ORDAIN 'WHATSOEVER COMES TO
pass : vet so, as thereby nei
ther is God the author of sin,
NOR IS VIOLENCE OFFERED TO
THE WILL OF THE CREATURES,
NOR IS THE LIBERTY OR CON
TINGENCY OF SECOND CAUSES
TAKEN AWAY, BUT RATHER ES
TABLISHED. 2. Although God knows
whatsoever may or can come
to pass upon all supposed con
ditions, yet hath he not de
creed anything because he
foresaw it as future, or as that
which would come to pass upon
such conditions.

* This exhibit is taken without change from the Rev. E. Tyrrell Green's treatise
in The Thirty-nine Articles and the Age of the Reformation (London [1896]),
ip. 354-355. Phrases in Italics are derived from tbe English Articles : those in
hick-faced type from the Lambeth Articles. About 58 per cent, of the Irish Arti-
les is taken from Art. XVII of the English Articles, and about 15 per cent, from
,he Lambeth Articles : leaving about 27 per cent, of new matter.
t Phrases in Italics are derived from the English Articles : those in thick type
rom the Lambeth Articles : those in small Capitals from the Irish Articles.
'hrases derived proximately from the Irish Articles and ultimately from the English
Lrticles will therefore be found set in Italic Capitals : those derived proximately
rom the Irish Articles and ultimately from the Lambeth Articles in thick Capitals.
Lbout 28 per cent, of the chapter is derived matter ; about 72 per cent, being orig-
nal. All but a trace of the derived matter is taken from the Irish Articles : and
he material thus taken from the Irish Articles is about evenly divided between
naterial original with them, and material ultimately derived from the English or
^ambeth Articles— about 10 per cent of the whole having each of these three
ources for its origin.
% Possibly the title read originally as in the Irish Articles, and in the debate
he last two words, here bracketed, were omitted.

' aDd omit corresponding clause

• Amended to "most wise and holy."
2 Debates signalized on these words, but details not given.
» Moved to insert here " without respect to anything foreseen,'
ielow : " without .... thereunto."
* " in time " omitted.
6 "should come" amended to "comes." .,„,,. «
• After several attempts to adjust this clause : "without  thereunto," viz. : (1) by prefixi
ng "absolutely;" (2) by omitting "any;" (3) by modifying so as to read "not being moved
hereunto by anything without himself;" (4) by transferring in a shortened form to just after
unchangeably" (see note 3)— it was removed from this place and expanded into a new section
-\ 2— of the completed Confession.

282

THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW.

IRISH ARTICLES (1615).
(12) By the same eternal
counsel, God hath predesti
nated some unto life, and
reprobated some unto
death: of both which there
is a certain number, known
only to God, which can nei
ther be increased nor di-
:minishe<-t.

(13) Predestination lo Hfe is
ihe everlasting purpose of God,
whereby, before the foundations of
the world were laid, he hath con
stantly decreed in his secret
counsel to deliver from curse and
damnation those whom he hath
chosen in Christ out of mankind,
and lo bring them by Christ unto
everlasting salvation, as vessels
made to honour.
(14) The cause moving
God to predestinate unto
life, is not the foreseeing of
faith, or perseverance, or
good works, or of anything
¦which is in the person pre
destinated, but only the
good pleasure of God him
self. For all things being or
dained for the manifestation
of his glory, and his glory be
ing to appear both in the works
of his mercy and of his justice,
it seemed good to his heavemy
wisdom to choose out a certain
number, towards whom he
would extend his undeserved
mercy, leaving the rest to be
spectacles of his justice.
(15) Such as are predesti
nated unto life, be called ac
cording unto Bod's purpose (his
Spirit working in due season),
and through grace they obey the
calling, they be justified freely,
they be made sons of God by adop
tion, they be made like the image
of his only-begollen Son Jesus
Christ, they walk religiously in
good works, andat length by God's

COMMITTEE'S PROPOSAL.
[3] By the decree of God, for
the manifestation of his glory,
some men and angels are pre
destinated unto everlasting
life, and others foreordained to
everlasting death.? [4] These
angels and men, thus predesti
nated and foreordained, are
particularly and unchangeably
designed, and their number is
so certain and definite, that it
cannot be either increased or
diminished.

[b] Those of mankind that
are predestinated unto life,
God, before the foundation of
the world was laid, according
to his eternal and immutable
purpose, and the secret coun
sel and good pleasure of his
will, hath chosen in Christ un
to everlasting glory,8 out of his
mere free grace and love, with
out any foresight of faith or
good works, or perseverance in
either of them, or any other
thing in the creature, as condi
tions, or causes moving him
thereunto ; and all to the praise
of his glorious grace.

[6] As God hath appointed
the elect unto glory, so hath he
to bring this to pass,9 by the
same decree,10 ordained to per
mit man to fall ; [and such as
are predestinated unto life ef
fectually to call to faith in
Christ by his Spirit working in
due season, to justify, adopt,
sanctify, and to keep by his
power through faith unto sal-

WE3TMENSTER CONFES
SION.
3. By the decree of God, for
the manifestation of his glory,
SOME men and angels are
PREDESTINATED UNTO ev
erlasting LIFE, and others
foreordained TO everlasting
DEATH.
4. These angels and men
thus predestinated and fore
ordained, are particularly, and
unchangeably designed, and
their NUMBER IS so CER
TAIN and definite, that it
CANNOT BE EITHER IN
CREASED OR DIMIN
ISHED. 5. Those of mankind that
are predestinated unto life, God,
BE PORE TEE FO UND A TION
OF TBE WORLD WAS LAID,
according to his ETERNAL
and immutable PURPOSE,
AND THE SECRET COUNSEL
and GOOD PLEASURE of
his wiU, sate: cbosen in
CHRIST UNTO EVERLAST
ING glory, out of his mere free
grace and love, WITH
OUT ANY FORESIGHT
OF FAITH, OR GOOD
WORKS, OR PERSEVER
ANCE in either of them, or
any other thing in the crea
ture, as conditions, or causes
moving him thereunto ; and
all to the praise of his glorious

6. As God hath appointed
the elect unto glory, so hath he,
by the eternal and most free
purpose of his will, foreor
dained all the means there
unto. Wherefore they who are
elected, being fallen in Adam,
are redeemed by Christ, ARE
effectually CALLED unto
faith in Christ BYHISSPIRI1
WORKING IN DUE SEASON,

1 0mission of the words " foreordained to everlasting death " proposed but refused : Mr. Whit
aker proposed some alteration in them, which being refused, he entered his dissent.
»The words " unto everlasting glory " were challenged, as perhaps superfluous, but retained.
o Ordered not to express " to bring this to pass." Mr. Gillespie proposed to substitute for the
clause "so hath he .... to permit man to fall;" "For the same end God hath ordained to
permit man to fall," but it did not prevail.
io Ordered not to assert " the same decree."

THE MAKING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 283

IRISH ARTICLES (1615).
lerey they attain to everlasting
.licily.

But such as are not
iredestlnated to salvation
hall finally be condemned
or their sins.

(16) The godly consideration
f predestination and our election
a, Christ, is full of sweet, pleas-
nt, and unspeakable comfort to
¦odly persons, and such as feel in
\emsetves the working of the
'pirit of Christ, mortifying the
•orks of the flesh, and their earthly
lembers, and drawing up their
linds to high and heavenly things:
s well because it doth greatly con-
rm and establish their faith of
ternal salvation to be enjoyed
\rough ChrUt, as because il doth
irvenlly kindle their love towards
rod. And, on the contrary
Ide, for curious and carnal per
ms lacking the Spirit of Christ,
i have continually before their
yes the sentence of God's predes-
nation is very dangerous.
(17) We must receive God's
remises in such wise as they be
aurally set forth unto us in holy
eriplure : and in our doings, that
ill of God is to be followed which
e have expressly declared unto us
i the word of God.

COMMITTEE'S PROPOSAL.
vation11]." Neither are any
other redeemed by Christ, ef
fectually called, justified,
adopted, sanctified, and saved,
but the elect only.^

[7] The rest of mankind,
God was pleased, according to
the unsearchable counsel of
his own will, whereby he ex-
tendeth or withholdeth mercy
as he pleaseth, for the glory
of his sovereign power14 over
his creatures, to pass by, and
to ordain them to dishonour
and wrath for their sin, to the
praise of his glorious justice.
[8] The doctrine of this high
mystery of predestination is to
be handled with special pru
dence and care, that men at
tending to the will of God
revealed in his word, and yield
ing obedience thereunto, may,
from the certainty of their
effectual vocation, be assured
of their eternal election. So
shall this doctrine afford mat
ter of praise, reverence, and
admiration of God, and of hu
mility, diligence, and abun
dant consolation to all that sin
cerely obey the Gospel.15

WESTMINSTER CONFES
SION.
ARE JUSTIFIED, ADOPTED,
sanctified, and kept by his
power through faith unto sal
vation. Neither are any
other redeemed by Christ,
effectually called, justified,
adopted, sanctified, and saved,
but the elect only.
7. The rest of mankind God
was pleased, according to the
unsearchable counsel of his
own will, whereby he extend-
eth or withholdeth mercy, as he
pleaseth, for the glory of his
sovereign power over his crea
tures, to pass by, and to ordain
them to dishonor and wrath,
FOR THEIR SIN, to the
praise of his glorious justice.
8. The doctrine of this high
mystery of predestination is to
be handled with special pru
dence and care, that men AT
TENDING THE WILL OF
GOD REVEALED IN EIS
WORD, and yielding obedi
ence thereunto, may, from the
certainty of their effectual vo
cation, be assured of their eter
nal election. So shall this doc
trine afford matter of praise,
reverence, and admiration of
God,and of humility, diligence,
and abundant consolation to all
that sincerely obey the gospel.

11 The bracketed portion is conjectural, to fill out the section according to the original open-
lg : it is derived from the Irish Article.
12 Mr. Reynolds proposed the following form, which supplied the basis on which the final form
as made (the underscored words were altered in making out the final form) : " As God hath
apointed the elect unto glory, so hath he by the same* eternal and most free purpose of his will,
ireordained all the means thereunto, which he im, his counsel is pleased lo appoint for the executing
' that decree ;*» wherefore they who are endowed with so excellent a benefit, c being fallen in Adam
•ed called in* according to God's purpose,"' etc. (a) " same " was omitted. (») This clause was
nitted. (°) This clause, derived from Art. xvii of XXXIX Articles, changed into "elected."
) " redeemed by Christ, are " was inserted here. («) It is uncertain whether " in " here is a
ere slip due to a mixture of the two expressions " according to " and " in accordance with,"
•whether the word "Christ" has fallen out inadvertently after it. (') "called according to
Dd's purpose " was altered to " effectually called to faith in Christ."
is Much debate was held over this final clause, but it was retained decisively.
14 "sovereign power " perhaps challenged but retained.
16 Debate signalized on this section but no details given.

jBasji