Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Calvinism & The Doctrines of Grace' started by BayouHuguenot, Jan 21, 2019.
It is available from Amazon UK.
Actually, just to be clear, the Westminster Standards teach that the covenant of grace is made with Christ and the elect (see WLC 31; WSC 20). So, the official position of the Westminster formularies is that only the elect are, properly speaking, in the covenant.
As providence would have it, I have just started reading John Davenant's commentary on Colossians. He makes the following observation, which may be of interest to you:
But this reply is invalid; because although it may be a general truth that the death of Christ was sufficient for all; yet is it also true, that the fruit of the death, of the resurrection, and of the intercession of Christ, actually belong only to those who are implanted into Christ; that I should be sure, therefore, the benefits of Christ belong to me, it is necessary I should be sure also, that I am become a member of Christ, i. e. am justified and reconciled to God. For, if I doubt whether I am effectually called and justified, I must also doubt, whether I am without Christ, without God, an alien to the commonwealth of Israel, and a stranger to the covenants of promise, or not, Ephes. ii. 12. When all these things are left in doubt, what place is there for confidence?
John Davenant, An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, trans. Josiah Allport (1627; 2 vols, London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1831), i, 41 (emphasis added).
Thanks for the quote. Have you read the dissertation at the end of the commentary? He goes into the issue and application of sufficiency at length.
It is not printed in the Banner of Truth reprint, but I will read it online in due course (you may find it here). Interestingly, they also omitted his defence of episcopacy prior to his commentary on the text, Diversity of Degrees in Ministers of the Gospel is not Repugnant to the Word of God. I think that is a shame. While I do not agree with him on church polity, his arguments corrected some of the straw-men that Presbyterians set-up and correct some of the weak arguments evangelical Anglicans often make to defend their church polity (such as the Bible does not address the subject).
If this is of interest, start a new thread, but I would like to see what you have in view as far as the weak arguments. The original Episcopalian argument was from what I read, not a jus divinum one. From what I've read, forget where, it was George Downame, a Presbyterian turn coat, who published the first such work in 1608. Bancroft had claimed so in a sermon in the early 1590s but those in favor of episcopacy were not ready for that and found it practically scandalous. By 1608 having they thought killed off English Presbyterianism, I guess they were ready to fight on the Presbyterians' field.
Basically, from what I recall from reading it a while ago, he argues that Episcopacy is biblical and debates the exegesis of Theodore Beza against it. In doing so, he corrects the straw-man that the only argument for Episcopacy was based on expediency.
I will have to check my histories of the Church of Ireland, but was George Downame (Bishop of Derry) really a Presbyterian turncoat? I thought that he was born at Chester and was raised in the CofE, being the son of Bishop William Downame? Are you possibly confusing Downame with his later successor, Ezekiel Hopkins?
I could be wrong, but I think I read this while researching English Presbyterians for Bownd's work on the Sabbath. Maybe different George Downame?
Polly Ha's work confirm's it is the same George Downame. I'll see if I can find that quote about first being Presbyterian in views; not sseeing it in Ha.
Sorry for the rabbit trail; again we can pursue this in a different thread if need be. This is a link to the author saying Downame had been a Presbyterian.
Here is my comment from Bownd, True Doctrine of the Sabbath (2015), Introduction, p. xlv. Specifically note 130.
Yes, so I believe the WCF on this point it seems.
To be fair to the Banner of Truth, their purpose was to publish John Davenant's commentary on Colossians as part of their Geneva Series of Commentaries. Hence, you can understand why they left the non-commentary material out of the publication. Besides, given that the commentary is well over 900 pages long, expecting them to publish another c. 300 pages is perhaps not reasonable.