Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace  ...but was it done by a majority vote for the WCF? In an instance like this, there had to have been talks even if not recorded since Rutherford and the scots were so prevalient in other areas, when they "lost" their opinion, was it settled under contention?
Supralapsarianism for instance, Twisse was hardcore, you mentioned Rutherford, and there were many others. Why was there such a spirit of compramise for the document, yet their private writings are against what they actually signed. Am I missing something or can you or anyone else enlighten me. |
No dissenting votes were noted; and again, if this had been understood as disavowing this view, it would have caused some discussion in Scotland for sure. I do not think Rutherford and Gillespie who both wrote on this topic I think during the Assembly (Gillespie in his Miscellany papers and Rutherford's Spiritual Antichrist was published in November 1647 according to Thomson's copy; he crossing out the 8 of 1648 in his copy, which is strange but I suppose Thomson would know what year he bought his copy even though the book stated 1648), believed their view was crossway with WCF 1.1. I do note that it was at the very beginning of the debate on chapter one that the following was decided by the assmbly: "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 Assemby [fo. 78v] <from time to time and to report to the Assembly when> they thinke fit ther 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." VanDixhoorn, volume 6, p. 145. Given how highly involved the Scots were in any word changes, I think if the Scots had seen this view as forbidden doctrinally they would have made as big a stink about this as they did over the Directory and the use of a table in communion, and we'd have something to read about as we do in that case.
