They key may be this, that while "[t]hey certainly did not succeed in getting any positive approbation of their opinions inserted" "it is just possible that the language of this section [WCF chapter 3] may have been so arranged, that they felt warranted in accepting it as not positively condemning them." Mitchell/Struthers, lvi-lvii.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress  Quote:
Originally Posted by py3ak Another point on the history. If a signatory of Dort, Westminster, etc., argued for other views in their writings, it may be as well to inquire whether those writings were before or after their signing, or both. If before, the judgment of charity would declare that their minds changed, possibly as a result of the discussion. If after, then they may be chargeable with a genuine inconsistency. | Mitchell discusses Calamy et al. on pages lv and following in his introduction to the Mitchell/Struthers edition of the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly. He tries very hard to see accommodation of the Davenant school in the standards but admits difficulties and tries to read the standards in a light in which Calamy et al could "sign" on. |