The Westminster Confession & Eschatology

The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights by J.V. Fesko

Whenever people approach the Westminster Standards to investigate matters of eschatology, or last things, they invariably want to know what the Standards have to say about the millennial question. Are the Standards a-, pre-, or postmillennial? Another question that frequently arises regarding the original version of the Confession is, why would the divines identify the pope as the antichrist (25.6)? In the minds of many critics, such a claim represents an embarrassing gaffe that had to be corrected by later generations, most notably in the 1789 American revisions of the Standards. Once again it is important to take the time to understand both the historical context and the theology of the early modern period. What many do not realize is that the divines were quite sober in their confessional proclamations about last things. And as strange as it might seem today to conclude that the pope is the antichrist, given the tumult of their period, many of the divines believed they were living in the terminal generation before the return of Christ. In light of these broad observations, it is necessary to examine the Standards on the subject of eschatology from within the milieu of early modernity so that the contemporary reader may better grasp what the Standards claim and teach.

Historical Background

Ever since the apostolic era and the numerous passages of Scripture warning people of the imminent return of Christ, every age has had people who thought they were living in the terminal generation, and the seventeenth century is no exception.¹ King James I (1566–1625) believed that the general neglect for the laws of England, not only among citizens but especially among the clergy, and a contempt for the church were signs that the “latter dayes” were “drawing on.”² James did not base this conviction solely on what he observed in his kingdom but based it also upon his understanding of Scripture. James published a pamphlet expositing Revelation 20:7–10, which he believed was a prophecy of the latter time, “our last age.”³ He was hardly alone in his convictions that he was living in the latter days. Ever since the beginning of the Reformation theologians such as Martin Luther (1483–1546) anticipated the imminent return of Christ. Luther drew attention to numerous cosmic perturbations and therefore thought that “the greater part of them have bene already sene, and that many others not here are to bee looked for”—signs such as falling stars, “many Sunnes at one time,” rainbows, sky-borne signs in the shapes of darts and swords, and the like. Luther, as King James would later opine, also believed that church officials were more interested in preserving their own honor than in furthering the cause of the gospel.⁴

John Calvin (1509–1564) likewise argued that the last days were upon the world because, according to his exegesis of a number of key texts in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Daniel, and the Olivet Discourse in Matthew’s Gospel, he believed that the last days would bring a great apostasy within the church. The time of apostasy was now upon him because a number of antichrists, such as the papacy and the rise of Islam throughout Europe, had appeared.⁵ Calvin was somewhat unusual in his identification of antichrist, in that he did not strictly identify him with the pope, as other theologians of the sixteenth century had done, though he did believe the pope was the leader of antichrist’s kingdom; Calvin instead argued that antichrist was manifest in a number of ways, including the papacy.⁶ Many other theologians, such as Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) and Andreas Osiander (1498–1552), contributed to the conviction that the return of Christ was imminent. In Osiander’s Conjectures of the Ende of the Worlde, the German Lutheran theologian claimed that the Scriptures were correct when Jesus said that no man knows the day or hour of his return. But Osiander nevertheless contended that Christians could make legitimate conjectures in order to discern the general time frame of when Christ would return.⁷ Osiander believed that one of the signs of Christ’s return was the “fall of the Antichriste of Rome.”⁸

Bullinger, in his published sermons on Revelation, identified the pope as the antichrist.⁹ Augustine Marlorat’s (1506–1562) commentary on Revelation was a compilation of comments drawn from several Reformed theologians, including Bullinger, Pierre Viret (1511–1571), Sebastian Meyer (1465–1545), Antoine du Pinet (ca. 1510–1584), François Lambert (ca. 1486–1530), Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563), Caspar Megander (1495–1545), Johannes Oecolampadius (1482–1531), Konrad Pellikan (1478–1556), and Lutheran theologian Justus Jonas (1493–1555).¹⁰ In his commentary, Marlorat argues that antichrist is not any one man but a kingdom, one that sets itself against Christ’s kingdom.¹¹ Reflecting the fact that his commentary is a compilation, Marlorat draws the antichrist-papacy and antichrist-Islam connection, since a number of the aforementioned theologians held these views.¹²

When one combines these exegetical-theological opinions with the events of the period, such as the “Protestant” victory of England over the “Roman Catholic” Spanish Armada in 1588, the failed Gunpowder Plot by Roman Catholics in 1605, the ongoing Thirty Years War (1618–1648) with its many of battles between Protestant and Catholic armies, and the perceived threat of encroaching Catholicism through the influence of Archbishop William Laud (1573–1645), it should be no surprise that many of the Westminster divines thought they were on the precipice of the consummation of the world and the second advent of Christ. Divines believing in the imminence of Christ’s return included Jeremiah Burroughs (ca. 1600–1646), Thomas Goodwin (1600–1680), and Edmund Calamy (1600–1666). In a sermon preached in 1645 Burroughs told his congregation that mighty stirrings were occurring in the world and that the expectation of Christ’s return was greater than ever before. Just as with the Samaritan woman’s expectations of the Messiah’s advent (John 4), so the godly saints of Burroughs’s day were all the more expectant of Christ’s return, and Burroughs exhorted his congregation to pray fervently for it.¹³

Independent divine Thomas Goodwin calculated that the world would end by 1666.¹⁴ His exegesis was part of a much larger exegetical conversation among a number of commentators. An abbreviated version of his argument runs as follows: First, Revelation 13:18 mentions the number of the beast, which is 666. Goodwin explains that the Greeks and Hebrews seldom mentioned the number 1,000. In this particular case, he inferred that 666 was actually 1666. Hence, he believed that 666 referred to 1,666 years after the birth of Christ. Second, Revelation 11:3 states that the two witnesses would prophesy for 1,260 days, which Goodwin took not for days but for years. This means that the rise of antichrist, the pope, had to begin around AD 406 (1,666–1,260 = 406). As Paul indicates in 2 Thessalonians 2:7–8, the man of lawlessness would assume power and begin to appear in the world. According to Goodwin, Pope Innocent I (AD 401–417) began to usurp authority over all churches around 406.¹⁵ Despite his mathematically precise exegesis, Goodwin was flexible on the exact date of Christ’s return, and like other theologians of the period he was convinced it would occur before the end of the seventeenth century. Burroughs, for example, writes:

Now the breaking of the Roman Empire was at the raising up of those ten several sort of governments called in Revelations ten Kings, and the raising up of those Kings was 400 yeares and something more after Christ, as Chronologers tell us, between the 400 and 500 yeares. It is hard to reckon to a yeare, there is so much difference in Chronologers computations; after that time there must be 1260 dayes, that is 1260 yeares. Make this computation, and compare all these Scripture one with another, it cannot be long, but in this century that is now currant, these latter dayes are here meant, when the people of God and the Jews shall returne to Jehovah, and David their King, and feare the Lord and his goodnesse.¹⁶

Burroughs, much like Goodwin, believed that the demise of the Roman Empire led to the rise of the ten kings (Rev. 17:12), which also brought about the rise of the antichrist, the pope, around AD 400.¹⁷

Edmund Calamy also expected that Christ would soon return and warned of it in a sermon that he preached from Jeremiah 18:7–10 before the House of Commons during a solemn fast on December 22, 1641. Calamy told his audience that the only way to avert God’s wrath upon England was to bring about a reformation, both personal and national. This did not mean that every person in England would have to turn to Christ for reformation to occur; a nation could repent of its sins generally. This repentance needed to take place at multiple levels—court, country, city, church, and state—and hence produce general reformation. But how was such a reformation to be accomplished?

Calamy believed it would occur in two ways. First, the House of Commons, as the representative governing body of England, should seek and implement reformation. Second, just as in the prophet Nehemiah’s day, the nation’s governing body could promote reformation as magistrates in a lawful manner. Calamy encouraged the House of Commons to call a synod to unify worship and doctrine in England. This would mean excluding Roman Catholics, whom Luther likened to foxes covered with dust entering a house to sweep it with their tails, but instead raising more dirt and creating chaos in the church.¹⁸

This brief historical sketch provides the requisite contextual data to understand the Standards and what they have to say about eschatology, or last things. Given the wars and rumors of wars, the perceived rise of antichrist, and the eager anticipation of the end of the world with the recent onset of the Reformation, the Westminster divines were set on edge. They expected the imminent return of Christ within a matter of decades.

Personal Eschatology

We can begin with a survey of personal eschatology. What happens to individuals upon their death and when they appear before the judgment seat at the consummation? How does a person’s justification bear upon his or her necessary appearance before the judgment seat of Christ on the last day?

Soul Sleep

The Confession’s initial statements about eschatology deal with what happens to people after they die. Without naming the doctrine of soul sleep, the Confession rejects the teaching that upon death a person enters an unconscious state and there awaits the return of Christ and the general resurrection, at which time the person is awakened from this unconscious state. Such a teaching featured prominently among Anabaptists in the sixteenth century. One of the Reformation’s initial negative responses to this doctrine came from Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531), who in 1531 penned his Exposition of the Faith, in which he rejected the doctrine of soul sleep.¹⁹

Around the same period Heinrich Bullinger also rejected the doctrine, and Calvin followed suit with his own work Psychopannychia.²⁰ This work was written in 1534, two years before his famous 1536 first edition of the Institutes of the Christian Religion. But fellow Reformer Wolfgang Capito (1478–1541) advised Calvin that he should not publish the work, and Calvin followed his counsel. Calvin later revised and eventually published it in 1542.²¹ His overall argument is that once saints die, they immediately go to dwell in the presence of the Lord. Their souls do not sleep—there is no unconscious state for those who die. Hence, the title of Calvin’s work reflects his thesis; psychopannychia literally means staying awake all night.²² Lutheran and Reformed theologians would later repeatedly cite Calvin’s work.²³ The Roman Catholics also rejected the doctrine at the Fifth Lateran Council (1513).²⁴

Though Anabaptists affirmed soul sleep, so did a number of mainstream Protestants. Martin Luther believed that when people die, they rest and sleep in peace, though the postmortem sleep is deeper than any sleep known to living man: “Thus after death,” writes Luther, “the soul enters its chamber and is at peace; and while it sleeps, it is not aware of its sleep.”²⁵ And though subsequent Lutheran theologians did not embrace Luther’s opinion, his views did, for a time, spread throughout England, as is evident not only in William Tyndale’s (ca. 1492–1536) promotion of the doctrine but also in the teaching of the Church of England.²⁶ Tyndale likely followed the teaching of Luther. And the Forty-Two Articles (1553), written under the guidance of Thomas Cranmer (1489–1556), confessed the doctrine of soul sleep, arguing that all who die sleep until the day of judgment.²⁷

The divines were undoubtedly aware of the advocacy of soul sleep, given its presence in the Forty-Two Articles, but they rejected it nonetheless. The Confession states, “The Bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but, their Souls (which neither dye, nor sleep) having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them” (32.1). One of the proof texts cited is Luke 23:43, which is about Christ’s interaction with the repentant thief on the cross, to whom Jesus said, “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” For the divines, the rejection of soul sleep was not simply a speculative question about what happened after death. Rather, it involved a proleptic anticipation of the respective destinies of the elect and non-elect. Immediately upon death the souls of the righteous “are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full Redemption of their Bodies.” That is, upon death believers immediately enjoy the beatific vision (e.g., Matt. 5:8).²⁸ Conversely, the “Souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkeness, reserved to the Judgment of the great Day.” The Confession also stipulates, “Beside these two Places, for Souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none” (32.1).

Thus, without mentioning the doctrine, the Confession also rejects the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory, a doctrine that separated Roman Catholics from Protestants generally, and especially the Reformed. The doctrine of purgatory was appended to the intermediate state, the period of time between a person’s death and glorification. What contemporary readers might not realize is that the intermediate state and the rejection of purgatory as an unscriptural doctrine are connected to the respective Reformed and Roman Catholic doctrines of justification. Given the animus between the Reformed and Roman Catholics over justification, it should be no surprise that the doctrine of purgatory was one of the more frequently disputed doctrines between the two parties.²⁹

Briefly, Roman Catholics taught that justification is a lifelong process in which a person is initially justified through baptism, and then through the use of the sacraments is strengthened and equipped to cooperate with the grace of God in order to become more just. Then, at the consummation and final judgment, the person is finally declared righteous in a second, or final, justification. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that upon death purgatory awaits those who have not yet acquired the necessary righteousness by faith working through love. The Council of Trent (1563) officially declared about purgatory, “The souls detained there are helped by the prayers of the faithful and most of all by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar.”³⁰

Trent reiterated what was codified in the Middle Ages at the First Council of Lyon (1245) and by theologians such as Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274).³¹ Aquinas based his doctrine of purgatory upon 2 Maccabees 12:44: “For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.” Aquinas argued that if prayers for the dead are legitimate, and it would be unnecessary to pray for those saints who were already in heaven, then “some kind of cleansing remains after this life.”³²

Justification and the Final Judgment

Tied to the question of purgatory in reference to the doctrine of justification is the question, how do the divines relate justification to the final judgment, if at all? First, contemporary readers must account for the backdrop of Roman Catholic views regarding justification and the final judgment. As noted above, the Council of Trent implied that at the final judgment believers receive their second, or final, justification. This conclusion was based upon the idea that once a person is justified in his baptism, he has the responsibility of increasing in that righteousness to obtain justification in the end.³³ Roman Catholic theologians such as Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) and Benedictus Pererius (1535–1610) were noted advocates of this twofold justification.³⁴

A number of early modern Reformed theologians were aware of this formulation and rejected it. Richard Hooker (1554–1600), for example, noted that the Reformed agreed with Rome on the necessity of the application of Christ’s merit to the sinner. However, when explaining the disagreements between the Reformed and Rome, he highlighted the issue of infused versus imputed righteousness. Hooker explains that Roman Catholics believe that the

first receipt of grace in their divinity is the first justification; the increase thereof, the second justification.… Unto such as have attained the first justification, that is to say, the first receipt of grace, it is applied farther by good works to the increase of former grace, which is the second justification. If they work more and more, grace doth more increase, and they are more and more justified.³⁵

Other Reformed theologians who noted and rejected the Roman Catholic twofold justification included Jeremias Bastingius (1551–1595), William Perkins (1558–1602), Robert Rollock (1555–1598), Andrew Willet (1562–1621), Thomas Cartwright (ca. 1535–1603), Pierre Du Moulin (1568–1658), Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661), and Francis Roberts (1609–1675).³⁶

On the other hand, some Reformed theologians argued for a twofold justification of a different nature. Anthony Burgess (d. 1664), one of the divines, writes, “But there are some learned and Orthodox Writers, that do admit of a first and second Justification, but not in the Popish sense, they utterly abhorre that, yet they affirm a first and second Justification.”³⁷ Burgess explains the nature of this twofold justification:

The first Justification is that acknowledged by the Orthodox, whereby, though sinners in our selves, yet believing are justified before God. The second, whereby thus justified out of our selves, we are justified before God in our selves. The first Justification is the cause of the second, and the second is the effect and demonstration of the first. The first is by faith, the second by works, and both are necessary.³⁸

Burgess’s description of this “orthodox” variant of a twofold justification differs from Roman Catholic versions, most notably by its use of causal language connecting the first and second justifications. This causal relationship would be rejected by Roman Catholics because Rome held that the believer’s works—energized by the grace of the sacraments and not the initial justification in baptism—were the cause of one’s final justification. According to Roman Catholic theologians, believers cooperate with God’s sacramental grace to contribute toward their further justification. Burgess notes four Reformed theologians who were reputed to articulate such an “orthodox” twofold justification: Lodewijk de Dieu (1590–1642), Martin Bucer (1491–1551), John Calvin (1509–1564), and Girolamo Zanchi (1516–1590).³⁹

In his Institutes, for example, Calvin argues that a person is justified by faith alone, “independently of all works.” But he nuances his interaction with Roman Catholic critics to make the point that it is one thing to discuss the intrinsic value of works vis-à-vis justification and another thing to note the place of works “after the establishment of the righteousness of faith.” Calvin explains that once a sinner is admitted into communion with Christ by God’s grace and is reconciled to God, he obtains the remission of sins and is clothed in the righteousness of Christ, as if it were his own, when he stands before the divine bar. “Where remission of sins has been previously received,” writes Calvin, “the good works which succeed are estimated far beyond their intrinsic merit; for all their imperfections are covered by the perfection of Christ, and all their blemishes are removed by his purity, that they may not be scrutinized by the Divine judgment.” With the cloak of Christ’s righteousness covering the imperfection of the believer’s works, therefore, “works are accounted righteous, or, which is the same thing, are imputed for righteousness.”⁴⁰

Along these lines, de Dieu also appeals to Calvin’s comments on Acts 10:35, “But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”⁴¹ Calvin explains that this verse may give the impression that salvation rests upon the merit of a person’s works. Calvin dismisses this idea and points out that the verse does not deal with justification. But he does raise the question as to whether works can in any way gain God’s favor for the believer. Calvin maintains that when God calls, regenerates, and recreates his own image in sinners whom he redeems, he does not encounter a mere man, one destitute of grace, but recognizes his own work in him. “Therefore,” writes Calvin, “God regards the faithful as accepted because they lead godly and righteous lives.” But these works, in Calvin’s judgment, are not inherently worthy of divine approbation; they are only acceptable through faith, which “borrows from Christ what works lack.”⁴²

What is immediately apparent, whether in de Dieu’s or Burgess’s citation of these passages, is that Calvin does not denominate his position as a second justification, though he does address the question as to how the believer’s good works are accepted before the divine bar. Moreover, others, such as Zanchi, offer similar explanations for this so-called second justification. Zanchi argues that a person is never justified by his works, but always by faith alone. However, his faith “is declared by his works whether he bee just or no.”⁴³ In other words, this so-called “orthodox” double justification is not the same type of double justification advocated by Roman Catholic theologians. Moreover, it is different from the formulations of Richard Baxter (1615–1691), who later came under significant criticism by two respected Westminster divines, Anthony Burgess and Richard Vines (1599–1656), as well as by John Owen (1616–1683), for his advocacy of a final justification based upon the believer’s good works.⁴⁴

The “orthodox” double justification is also different from the views of Jacob Arminius (1560–1609), who held, unlike his peers, that justification is not complete until the final judgment.⁴⁵ Arminius speaks of the beginning of justification at a person’s conversion, and its completion at the final judgment:

But the end and completion of justification will be near the close of life, when God will grant, to those who end their days in the faith of Christ, to find his mercy absolving them from all the sins which had been perpetrated through the whole of their lives. The declaration and manifestation of justification will be in the future general judgment.⁴⁶

Since Arminius held that believers can fall away, their justification, though supported by the grace of God, also hinges upon their faithfulness. Justification, therefore, cannot be completed until it is certain that the believer will not fall away.⁴⁷

Burgess addresses these issues—the unorthodox and orthodox double justifications—by noting that many criticized the uncommon view of the orthodox double justification. He draws attention, for example, to David Pareus’s (1548–1622) criticism of Bucer’s view, which the former characterized as a facile attempt to appease Roman Catholics.⁴⁸ Burgess grants that the Reformed certainly recognize that, subsequent to a person’s justification, his good works are acceptable in Christ before the divine tribunal, but he stipulates:

Yet that this should be called a second Justification, and that before God, there seemeth to be no ground from the Scripture; for (as you heard) Abraham and David after their first Justification are still said in some manner to be justified, viz. By faith, not by works. Its true, God doeth accept of beleevers as sincere, that they are not hypocrites, but they are not justified by this; for David crieth out, Psal. 19 Who can understand the errours of his heart? so that there is hypocrise in the heart of the most upright man for which God might justly condemn him.⁴⁹

Burgess desires to purge the doctrine of justification of too much subtlety, especially as it relates to the final judgment: “Oh let not any subtil distinctions poison thee!”⁵⁰ He notes that Turks (i.e., Muslims), Jews, Papists, and formal Protestants (presumably the likes of Baxter and Arminius) were all agreed that some personal righteousness had to be established in order to stand before the divine bar, but about such righteousness Burgess writes that works “can no more stand before Gods judgement then stubble before the fire: such a righteousnesse may have greater applause in the world, but bring it to God it is abominable. As the eye can endure to look upon a Candle or the stars, but is not able to endure the glorious beams of the Sun.”⁵¹ So the question remains, given the parameters of the expressed views, where do the Westminster Standards fall? Do they advocate an “orthodox” double justification?

The first thing readers should observe is the Confession’s statement that after death believers are immediately “received into the highest Heavnes, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory waiting for the full Redemption of their Bodies,” whereas unbelievers “are cast into Hell” (32.1). These two diverse ends for believers and unbelievers occur before the final judgment. When they address the issue of the final judgment, the divines write that all persons “shall appear before the Tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their Thoughts, Words, and Deeds; and, to receive according to what they have done in the Body, whether good or evil” (33.1). Of interest is the series of proof texts the divines cite, which includes Ecclesiastes 12:14; Matthew 12:36–37; Romans 2:16; 14:10, 12; 1 Corinthians 6:3; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Peter 2:4; and Jude 6. Noteworthy is the fact that none of these texts are cited in the Confession’s chapter on justification. Hence, thus far, the Confession states that believers will have to give an account of their actions before the tribunal of Christ but mentions nothing of a second or final justification.

The closest the divines get to addressing the question of justification and the final judgment appears in the Shorter Catechism: “What benefits do Believers receive from Christ at the resurrection?” The catechism responds, “At the Resurrection, Believers being raised up in glory, shall be openly acknowledged and acquitted in the day of Judgement, and made perfectly blessed in full injoying of God to all eternity” (q. 38; cf. LC q. 90). What do the divines mean by “openly acknowledged and acquitted,” and is this language intended to convey the idea of a second justification? The most likely answer is no. It is telling that when the divines chose their terms, they specifically did not employ the word justify or any variant thereof. Their choice of words likely reflects Burgess’s above-cited comments about the impropriety of speaking of a second justification.

Other theologians of the period, such as Edward Leigh (1602–1671), follow a similar pattern when explaining the reasons for the final judgment:

1. That God’s decree might be fulfilled (Acts 17:31).

2. That God’s honor may be vindicated (Eccles. 3:16).

3. That God’s justice may be cleared (Eccles. 9:1; Isa. 30:33; Rom. 2:15; 2 Tim. 4:8), and that he would call all people to account for their actions.

4. In respect of the saints, that their innocence may be made manifest, and their good works rewarded, and all things set straight.

5. That the wicked might be fully punished.

In this respect, Leigh notes how the day of judgment for believers is nothing to be feared but eagerly anticipated:

It is comfortable to the godly, the Scripture seldome speaks of the day of Judgement, but it cals on them to rejoyce, Lift up your heads, Luke 21:28. It is a phrase implying the comfort, hope and boldnesse that the people of God have, or ought to have: comfort your selves with these words. It is compared to a day of refreshing, to the meeting of the Bridegroom, all which imply, that that time is [a] matter of joy and consolation to the godly, it is their marriage and coronation day.⁵²

Leigh places emphasis upon the final judgment as comfort and vindication, not a second justification. A similar emphasis appears in Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644), who explains that the final judgment is all about condemnation or acquittal, not a second justification.⁵³

Further evidence appears when we explore what several Reformed theologians of the period have to say about passages of Scripture that relate to the final judgment and the consummation.⁵⁴ One such passage is Revelation 19:8, which speaks of the marriage feast of the lamb at the consummation: “And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.” Franciso Ribera (1537–1591), one Roman Catholic interpreter among others, claimed that the “righteousness of the saints” is their good works, their merit.⁵⁵ Reformed interpreters commonly pointed to the doctrine of justification in the explanation of this passage. David Pareus (1548–1622), for example, counters Ribera’s exegesis and argues that the righteousness of the saints “was given” (ἐδόθη) to them, which contradicts the idea that their fine linen was their own good works. He argues that the works of believers could never be “righteousness” (δικαιώματα) because their works are like menstrual cloths (Isa. 64:6). Pareus points out that in Christ’s parable of the wedding feast (Matt. 22:12) some guests possessed good works—they obeyed the call and attended the wedding. But these guests were nonetheless thrown out because they were not appropriately clothed—they were not dressed in fine linen. What, ultimately, does the fine linen represent? Pareus argues: “Therefore this fine linen or wedding garment is Christ himself with his righteousnesse, with which we being clothed are acceptable to God: For Iehovah is our righteousnesse, that is, he is made righteousnesse unto us” (cf. Rev. 7:14–15). The fine linen worn by the saints is “called the righteousnesses or justifications of the saints, because they are imputed to the Saints by Christ the bridegroome.”⁵⁶ This was a common explanation of this passage.⁵⁷

Richard Sibbes (ca. 1577–1635) offers similar observations. He explains that the doctrine of justification provides believers with great assurance that they have been clothed with the righteousness of Christ: “If wee be cloathed with the Garments of Christs righteousnesse, wee may goe through the wrath of God: for, that alone is wrath-proofe; that will pacifie God, and pacifie the Conscience too. It is a righteousnesse of Gods owne providing, and accepting.”⁵⁸ In a sermon preached before the House of Lords, on Zephaniah 2:3, “Seek ye the Lord, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the Lord’s anger,” one of the divines, William Bridge (ca. 1600–1671), told his audience to find shelter in Christ: “In the day of Gods Anger Seek Righteousnesse.”⁵⁹ For Bridge, this righteousness is Christ. He told his audience, “Do not come unto Christ that you may live wickedly; nor think to be first holy, that you may come unto Christ; but come unto Christ that you may be holy. Seek the Lord and his righteousness in this respect.”⁶⁰

Another consideration appears in how the Standards and theologians of the period explain how God executes the judgment. James Ussher explains the differences between the believer and the nonbeliever at the final judgment, and the disparate experiences each will have. God will bring all people to judgment, that is, he will pronounce an irrevocable sentence of either absolution or condemnation. There are two moments of judgment, according to Ussher: the first at a person’s death, when he is immediately sent either to heaven or to hell, and the second at the general resurrection on the last day.⁶¹ Ussher lists four differences between the treatment of the elect and the non-elect:

1. The elect are raised as members of the body of Christ by virtue of the power of his resurrection, whereas the non-elect, as malefactors, will be brought forth from the grave by the judicial power of Christ and the power of the curse of the law.

2. The elect are raised unto eternal life, which is called resurrection to life, whereas the non-elect are raised to condemnation, hence it is called the resurrection of condemnation.

3. The bodies of the elect will be glorified, powerful, nimble, and impassible, whereas the non-elect will have bodies suited for the punishment of hell.

4. The elect will be placed at the right hand of Christ, and the non-elect at his left hand.⁶²

Immediately evident is that before the final judgment there is already a difference in how the elect and non-elect are treated.

But when Ussher turns to discuss the specifics of the final judgment, he makes no recourse to a second justification; he instead employs the language of acquittal. For Ussher, once the elect and non-elect are placed at the right and left hands of Christ respectively, Christ will open the “book of record, by which the dead shall be judged” (see Rev. 20:12). At this point, Christ will cause all to remember whatever good or evil they have done in their lives, “the secrets of all hearts then revealed.” Christ will then open the book of life, “the eternal decree of God to save his Elect by Christ, which decree shall then at length be made known to all.” Then the act of judgment follows “wherein the Elect shal first be acquitted, that they may after as assistants joyne with Christ in the judgement of the reprobate men and Angels.” The evidence brought forth in the judgment will be each man’s conscience, which will reveal all of his actions, whether good or evil.

Even then, the elect and the non-elect are treated differently. Ussher writes:

1. The Elect shall not have their sinnes, for which Christ satisfied, but onely their good works remembered. 2. Being in Christ, they and their works shall not undergoe the strict triall of the Law simply in itself, but as the obedience thereof doth prove them to be true partakers of the grace of the Gospel.⁶³

What, according to Ussher, makes the works of the elect acceptable before the divine tribunal? The works of the wicked will be condemned strictly in accordance with the law, and as such, their wages will be damnation. But the works of the elect will be pronounced just, because their works, “though imperfect, doe prove their faith (whereby they lay hold on Christ and his meritorious righteousnesse) to be a true faith, as working by love in all parts of obedience.”⁶⁴ Ussher calls this evaluation of the believer’s works an acquittal, not a second justification.

Another resource on this question of acquittal (not justification) at the final judgment comes from Thomas Watson’s (1620–1686) sermons on the Shorter Catechism. Watson explains that the day of judgment will be terrible for the wicked but a day of comfort to the righteous. Christ will own the elect by name, those whom the world rejected and scorned, and will openly acknowledge them to be precious in his eyes before the unbelieving world. Christ as Judge will plead for his people even though it is odd, notes Watson, to have the Judge also serve as an advocate. Christ will plead his own blood for his people and vindicate them from all unjust censures. Christ will absolve his people before men and angels and profess to the world all the good deeds the saints have done. Christ will call his saints to join him at the divine bar, from which they will judge the world with Christ (cf. LC q. 90). In all of these descriptions of the final judgment Watson repeatedly invokes the word acquittal, not justification.⁶⁵

The idea that works demonstrate or are evidence of genuine faith is a common theme in early modern Reformed literature and frequently appears in the context of explanations of the final judgment. William Ames (1576–1633), for example, maintains that the end of the world brings the “declaration of justification and redemption which is shown in their effects,” namely, the resurrection unto life, and the wicked have a resurrection unto condemnation.⁶⁶ Likewise, the sins of the faithful do not come into judgment because, according to Ames, “They are covered and taken away by the sentence of justification; the last judgment will be a confirmation and manifestation of that sentence. It would not be right that they should again be brought to light.”⁶⁷ Others, such as Johannes Wollebius (1589–1629), argue along similar lines, and they also speak of the acquittal of believers, not a second or final justification.⁶⁸ On this note, it is interesting to observe that Baxter, who advocated a final or second justification, writes of both justification and acquittal at the final judgment.⁶⁹ The idea of a second or final justification was common among Roman Catholic and neonomian theologians and consequently a target for Reformed anti-Roman polemics. Hence the language of a second (or final) justification does not appear in the Westminster Standards or in any other major Reformed Confession.⁷⁰

Millennialism

When we move beyond the issue of personal eschatology and proceed to matters of general eschatology, questions inevitably arise concerning the millennium: what, for example, is the nature of the thousand-year reign of Christ mentioned in Revelation 20:4? The millennial question is inseparable from matters that pertain to the end of the world. During the early modern period there were largely two competing understandings of the millennium: premillennialism, which is the idea that Christ will return and usher in a literal thousand-year reign on earth, and postmillennialism, which teaches that Christ will return to the earth after the thousand-year reign; opinions were divided, though, on whether this reign is a literal or figurative thousand years.⁷¹ Today, although some people zealously promote their millennial views, charges of heresy are rare. Historic pre-, a-, and postmillennialists typically accept one another as orthodox, despite their disagreements. But such doctrinal latitude was not the case in the early modern period.

During the later days of the Reformation common opinions about premillennialism (chiliasm or millenarianism) were quite negative. The idea of an earthly reign of Christ smacked of crass literalism, which had more in common with Jewish exegesis of the Scriptures than with responsible interpretation. The Augsburg Confession (1530), written by Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560), connected premillennialism with the doctrine of the Anabaptists and condemned them for “spreading Jewish opinions to the effect that before the resurrection of the dead the godly will take possession of the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being suppressed everywhere.”⁷² Calvin was unimpressed with the “millenarians, who limited the reign of Christ to a thousand years.” Calvin writes: “Their fiction is too puerile to require or deserve refutation.… Those who assign the children of God a thousand years to enjoy the inheritance of the future life, little think what dishonor they cast on Christ and his kingdom.” Calvin believed that the premillennial appeal to the book of Revelation misunderstood its nature, namely, that it is about the history of the church before the return of Christ, not a thousand-year reign after his return.⁷³

First-generation Reformer and leader of the Zurich churches Heinrich Bullinger also rejected premillennialism and codified this rejection in the Second Helvetic Confession (1566). In its chapter on the person and work of Christ, under its rejection of the teaching of various sects, the confession states:

We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the day of judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth. For evangelical truth in Matthew, chapters 24 and 25, and Luke 18, and apostolic teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2, and 2 Timothy, chapters 3 and 4, present something quite different.⁷⁴

Perhaps owing to Bullinger’s influence upon the English Reformation, the same type of rejection appears in the Forty-Two Articles (1552), which were written under the supervision of Thomas Cranmer. Article 41 states that the millenarians promote a fable contrary to the Scriptures and embrace Jewish ravings with their teaching of a thousand-year reign.⁷⁵

Despite these negative estimations of premillennialism, a few Reformed voices advocated this view in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Three Reformed theologians, Johannes Piscator (1546–1625) of Strasbourg, Joseph Mede (1586–1638) in England, and Johannes Heinrich Alsted (1588–1638) in Herborn, were well-known advocates of premillennialism.⁷⁶ These theologians were able to influence a number of divines present at the Westminster Assembly, including Thomas Goodwin and the moderator William Twisse (1578–1646). In fact, Twisse wrote the preface to the English translation of Mede’s Key of the Revelation.⁷⁷ Not only did Twisse find Mede’s exegesis convincing, but some of the historical events unfolding around him led him to believe that the millennium would be soon upon them. In correspondence between Twisse and Mede, for example, Twisse opined that the English colonies in the Americas could likely be the location of the New Jerusalem:

Now, I beseech you, let me know what your opinion is of our English Plantations in the New world. Heretofore I have wondered in my thoughts at the Providence of God concerning that world, not discovered till this world of ours is almost at an end; and then no footsteps found of the knowledge of the true God, much less of Christ. And then considering our English Plantations of late, and the opinion of many grave Divines concerning the Gospel’s fleeting Westward; sometimes I have had such thoughts, Why may not that be the place of New Jerusalem?⁷⁸

Mede was not convinced of Twisse’s speculations, but this nonetheless helps provide the context of what some of the Westminster divines believed about such matters.⁷⁹

Mede exercised a degree of influence over Goodwin, whom he tutored at Cambridge.⁸⁰ In his exposition of Ephesians, Goodwin explains that Christ himself will not reign on earth for one thousand years, but that heaven itself will descend and thereby extend the reign of Christ upon earth. Goodwin writes:

He hath appointed a special world on purpose for him, between this world and the end of the day of judgment,—and the day of judgment itself is part of it, if not the whole of it,—wherein our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ shall reign; which the Scripture eminently calleth the “world to come;” Christ’s world, as I may so call it: that as this present world was ordained for the first Adam, and God hath given it unto the sons of men, so there is a world to come appointed for the second Adam, as the time after the day of judgment is God the Father’s in a more eminent manner, who then shall be all in all.⁸¹

Goodwin speaks of this reign of Christ occurring “between this world and the end of the day of judgment,” that is, in the middle of history, not at its end.

Despite the growing popularity of premillennialism (or chiliasm), there was a strong backlash against the position. Mede stayed in contact with many of his former Cambridge colleagues, among whom was William Ames. In correspondence with Mede, Ames intimated that the former’s work on the book of Revelation was not getting a positive reception in the Netherlands. One Dutch scholar, Daniel van Laren, believed that Mede had fallen into the errors of the Jews with an overly literalistic reading of the Apocalypse.⁸² Other opponents to Mede’s view included Lodewijk de Dieu and Ames, both of whom were not convinced of Mede’s exegesis of Revelation 20:4 and the contention that the first resurrection from the dead is physical.⁸³ Other opponents included Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644), who believed that

the general resurrection will take place at the same time, so that we might tightly hold this against those who state that a thousand years before the general resurrection the martyrs will be raised and reign with Christ on earth. For the Holy Spirit shows us only two visible comings of Christ: one in the flesh when He became man, and another in the flesh, when He shall come to judge the quick and the dead: He immediately connects the resurrection of the dead with this coming, Mt. 24:30–31.⁸⁴

Other Reformed Continental opponents of premillennialism included Antonius Walaeus (1573–1639), Gisbert Voetius (1589–1676), and Moïse Amyraut (1596–1664).⁸⁵

Opposition to premillennialism also appeared within the assembly itself. The most notable dissatisfaction and opposition among the assembly arose from one of the Scottish advisors, Robert Baillie (1602–1662). Baillie wrote in a letter that he had been enjoying reading a recent publication by John Forbes (1593–1648), a theology professor at the University of Aberdeen, but that he could not find anything in its index against “the Millenaries.” Baillie was surprised because Forbes’s work covered doctrinal errors and controversies from the time of the apostles down to the seventeenth century, and he found nothing in it against premillennialism.⁸⁶ Baillie lamented, “I cannot dream why he should have omitted ane errour so famous in antiquitie, and so troublesome among us.” Baillie noted that a number of independents, including Goodwin and Jeremiah Burroughs, and others such as Twisse, Stephen Marshall (ca. 1594–1655), Herbert Palmer (1601–1647), “and many more, are express Chiliasts.”⁸⁷

Baillie was convinced that premillennialism was problematic, and he even labeled it heresy. He wrote a work on the errors of the Independents (i.e., Congregationalists) and in the final chapter argued that the literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth is contrary to Scripture.⁸⁸ Baillie begins the chapter by calling premillennialism “sparckles of new light” that originated with the “Hereticke Cerinthus” (ca. AD 100), whom Irenaeus (130–202) opposed in his Against Heresies.⁸⁹ Premillennialism was advocated by some of the Greek and Latin fathers, but “it was quickly declared, both by the Greek and Latine Church, to be a great error, if not an heresie.” From the time of Augustine (354–430), claims Baillie, no one embraced the teaching until the Anabaptists exhumed it from the grave. After that, Alsted and Piscator promoted the doctrine, as did Mede at Cambridge. Baillie also mentions John Archer (fl. 1640s) and Robert Maton (1607–1653) as contemporary advocates.⁹⁰

Among other arguments, Baillie enumerates nine reasons why premillennialism is an error:

1. From the point of Christ’s ascension until the final judgment, he abides in heaven. Orthodox divines hold that Christ has two advents (his incarnation and the consummation), not three (including also a millennial reign).

2. Christ sits at the right hand of the Father until the final judgment.

3. The resurrection at the consummation includes both the wicked and the righteous and occurs on the last day, not before.

4. Christ’s kingdom is spiritual, not earthly, and the Scriptures do not know of another type of kingdom.

5. As long as the church is upon the earth, it is a mixed body, consisting of elect and reprobate, good and bad, as a corporate company under the cross and subject to various temptations—one that always requires Word and sacrament, prayer and ordinances. Hence, the idea that the earthly church would have glorified saints ruling over the rest of the world in a temporal kingdom is incorrect.

6. Christ’s return is not supposed to be predictable, but if his millennial reign begins in 1650 or 1695, as some have alleged, then this would tell us that the return of Christ would occur in 2651 or 2696.

7. The reward of the martyrs is eternal life in the heavens, not a temporal reign upon the earth for one thousand years.

8. An earthly kingdom of Christ requires the restoration of Jerusalem and the Jewish kingdom after its destruction by the Romans, but Scripture denies this according to Ezekiel 16:53, 55.

9. Antichrist is supposed to be destroyed before the millennial reign according to chiliasts, but Scripture is clear that antichrist will continue until the day of judgment.⁹¹

Baillie also discerns other exegetical problems with premillennialism. Concerning Revelation 20:4 and the first resurrection, he argues that premillennialists take this passage literally and fail to understand that “most of this Booke,” the book of Revelation, “is Mysticall and Allegorical.” He also, in line with Reformation heremeneutical principles, contends that Revelation 20:4 is a difficult and obscure passage of Scripture, and that there are other places in the Bible that speak of the resurrection more clearly and with less obscure and nonmystical terms.⁹² As the Confession states: “The infallible Rule of Interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture it selfe: and therefore, when there is a Question about the true and full sense of any Scripture … it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly” (1.9). Baillie also believes that premillennialism weakens the nature of Christ’s reign because it limits it to one thousand years. But when we speak of the reign of Christ, we must do so according to the nature of his person, which is eternal; hence his reign must be much longer than one thousand years.⁹³ While today’s readers might think that Baillie’s opinions were extreme, his views were quite common; a number of Reformed theologians of the period, to lesser and greater degrees, identified chiliasm as error, or even heresy.⁹⁴

But the million-dollar question is, how do the Standards handle this subject? Compared with some of the speculations about the timing of the end of the world, the Confession is marked by a discernable sobriety—there is no attempt to discuss, hint, or allude to any possible date for the end of the world. Nor does the Confession address the nature of the millennium. It simply discusses what happens to a person upon his death and the general resurrection from the dead (32.1–3). In the following chapter the Confession discusses the general events surrounding the day of judgment and then remarks:

As Christ would have us to be certainly perswaded, That there shall be a Day of Judgment both to deter all men from sin, and for the greater consolation of the Godly in their Adversity: so, will he have that Day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal Security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and, may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen. (33.3)

At first glance one might be led to the conclusion that the divines left all issues of the timing and nature of the millennial reign off to the margins, but upon closer examination important details in the Larger Catechism should be considered.

In their often discreet manner, the divines quietly reject premillennialism in the Larger Catechism. The catechism explains that at the last day there will be a general resurrection of the dead, both the just and the unjust (q. 87). In the following question they ask (q. 88):

Q. What shall immediately follow after the resurrection?

A. Immediately after the resurrection shall follow the generall and finall judgement of Angels and men, the day and hour whereof no man knoweth, that all may watch and pray, and be ever ready for the coming of the Lord.

The Catechism speaks of only one resurrection, and then the final judgment follows that event immediately; there is no room for a millennial reign between the resurrection and final judgment. So the Standards reject premillennialism but do so silently; the view is not mentioned by name, nor do any statements indicate that other views are erroneous or heretical. In other words, the Standards neither embrace nor condemn the view, which stands in marked contrast to the stronger and explicit rejections in the Augsburg Confession, the Forty-Two Articles, and the Second Helvetic Confession. So whatever invective some members of the assembly might have had for premillennialism, the rest of the divines were more circumspect in their treatment of it.

Conclusion

We find very circumspect and prudent treatments of matters pertaining to eschatology in the Westminster Standards. The divines reject soul sleep, purgatory, and premillennialism. Given their historical context, it seems only natural that they would identify the pope as the antichrist, however out of place such judgments may seem to modern readers. And despite the belief among a number of the divines that theirs was the terminal generation, all such speculations were left out of the Standards. What is interesting, however, is that, despite the belief in the imminent return of Christ, the divines thought one of the most urgent things they could do was write a confession of faith.

This historical-theological context sheds new light upon the confessional-writing activity of the divines. Were contemporary Christians to believe that the world would end in the next ten to twenty years, what activities might they carry out? Would they retreat from the rest of the world, build a fortress, and stockpile weapons, food, and supplies, or would they naturally and without question engage in the reformation of the church? Would they write a confession of faith and two catechisms? This is precisely what the Westminster divines did, which demonstrates how important they believed orthodox theology and practice to be in the life of the church and its corporate and individual eschatology.

1. For a survey of English early modern eschatology, see Bryan W. Ball, A Great Expectation: Eschatological Thought in English Protestantism to 1660 (Leiden: Brill, 1975).

2. James I, “A Speech in the Starre-Chamber, the 20 June 1616,” in The Workes of the Most High and Mightie Prince James (London: Robert Baker and John Bill, 1616), 554.

3. James I, Ane Fruitfull Meditatioun Contening ane Plane and Facill Expositioun of Ye 7.8.9 and 10 Veris of the 20 Chap. of the Revelatoun (Edinburgh: Henri Charteris, 1588), fol. A3r.

4. Martin Luther, A Very Comfortable, and Necessary Sermon in These Our Dayes, Made by the Right Reverend Father, and Faithful Servaunt of Jesus Christ Martin Luther, concerning the Coming of our Savior Christ to Judgement, and the Signes That Go Before the Last Day (n.p., 1570), fols. 255, 258, 266.

5. John Calvin, Romans and Thessalonians, in CNTC (1960; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), comm. 2 Thess. 2:1–3 (pp. 396–400).

6. Cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. John Allen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 4.7.25; Calvin, Thessalonians, comm. 2 Thess. 2:7–8 (pp. 403–4); Katherine R. Firth, The Apocalyptic Tradition in Reformation Britain 1530–1645 (Oxford: OUP, 1979), 34–35.

7. Cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. John Allen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 4.7.25; Calvin, Thessalonians, comm. 2 Thess. 2:7–8 (pp. 403–4); Katherine R. Firth, The Apocalyptic Tradition in Reformation Britain 1530–1645 (Oxford: OUP, 1979), 34–35.

8. Ibid., A3v; Firth, Apocalyptic Tradition, 62.

9. Heinrich Bullinger, A Hundred Sermons upon the Apocalips of Jesu Christe (n.p., 1561), serm. 58 (pp. 385–91).

10. Cf., e.g., Sebastian Meyer, In Apocalypsim Iohannis Apostoli D. Sebastiani Meyer Ecclesiastae Bernesis Commentarius (Tiguri: Ex Officina Froschovianna, 1539); Antoine du Pinet, Exposition de l’Apocalypse de Sainct (Geneva, 1557); François Lambert, Exegeseos in Sanctam Divi Ioannis Apocalypsim (Marburg: Franz Rhode, 1528); Irena Backus, Reformation Readings of the Apocalypse: Geneva, Zurich, and Wittenberg (Oxford: OUP, 2000), 63.

11. Augustine Marlorat, A Catholike Exposition upon the Revelation of Sainct John (London: H. Binnerman, 1574), fol. 184.

12. Ibid., fols. 183–86.

13. Jeremiah Burroughs, Jerusalems Glory Breaking Forth into the World, Being a Scripture-Discovery of the New Testament Church, in the Latter Days Immediately Before the Second Coming of Christ (London: Giles Calvert, 1675), 111–12; Ball, Great Expectation, 5.

14. Ball, Great Expectation, 119–20.

15. Thomas Goodwin, An Exposition of the Revelation, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin, 12 vols. (1861–1866; Eureka: Tanski, 1996), 3:73–75.

16. Jeremiah Burroughs, An Exposition of the Prophesie of Hosea (London: R. Dawlman, 1643); lect. 3, Hos. 3:5 (p. 749); Ball, Great Expectation, 120.

17. Goodwin, Revelation, 74.

18. Edmund Calamy, Englands Looking-Glasse, Presented in a Sermon, Preached before the Honorable House of Commons, at Their Late Solemne Fast, December 22. 1644 (London: Christopher Meredith, 1642), 45–48; Ball, Great Expectation, 103.

19. Ulrich Zwingli, An Exposition of the Faith, in Zwingli and Bullinger, ed. G. W. Bromiley (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 273–76.

20. Heinrich Bullinger, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, ed. Thomas Harding, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2004), 4.10 (2:390).

21. John Calvin, Psychopannychia; or, The Souls Imaginary Sleep between Death and Judgment, in John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, ed. Henry Beveridge, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2009), 413–90.

22. Wulfert de Greef, The Writings of John Calvin: An Introductory Guide, trans. Lyle D. Bierma (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 165–67.

23. See, e.g., William Ames, Bellarminus Enervatus (Oxford: Excudebat Guilielmus Truner, 1629), 2.2.25 (p. 110); André Rivet, Catholicus Orthodoxus, Appositus Catholico Papistae (Leiden: Abrahamum Commelinum, 1630), 2.42 (p. 594); Johannes Cloppenburg, Gangraena Theologiae Anabaptisticae (Amsterdam: Gerardus Borstius, 1684), disp. 27.9–10 (pp. 186–87); Richard Baxter, The Saints Everlasting Rest, 2nd ed. (London: Thomas Underhill, 1651), 2.10 (p. 302).

24. Fifth Lateran Council, sess. 8, December 19, 1513, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner, 2 vols. (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 1:605.

25. Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis Chapters 21–25, comm. Gen. 25:7–10, in LW, 4:313; cf. Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 414–16.

26. Cf. Leonard Hutter, Compend of Lutheran Theology, trans. H. E. Jacobs and G. F. Spieker (Philadelphia: Lutheran Bookstore, 1868), 29.7 (pp. 226–27); Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1889), 632–34; Johann Andreas Quenstedt, Theologia Didactico-Polemica, sive Systema Theologicum (Lipsiae: Fritsch, 1702), 4.17.16 (pp. 538–39); William Tyndale, An Answere unto Sir Thomas Mores Dialoge, ed. Anne M. O’Donnell and Jared Wicks (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2000), 2.8 (p. 118; see also 345–46).

27. W. F. Wilkinson, ed., The Articles of the Church of England, 2nd ed. (London: John W. Parker, 1850), § 40 (p. 104).

28. See, e.g., John Davenant, An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, trans. Josiah Allport (1627; London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1831), comm. Col. 1:15 (p. 183); cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IaIIae, qq. 2–5.

29. See, e.g., John Frith, A Disputation of Purgatorye (London, 1533); Rudolf Gwalther, Antichrist (Emden: Christophor Trutheall, 1556), serm. 3 (fol. 96); Thomas Cranmer, An Homily or Sermon of Good Works Annexed unto Faith, in Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, ed. John Edmund (1556; Cambridge: CUP, 1846), 148; Marlorat, A Catholike Exposition upon the Revelation of Sanct John, fol. 11r; William Perkins, An Exposition of the Symbole or Creed of the Apostles, in The Workes of That Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ, in the Universitie of Cambridge, Mr. William Perkins (London: John Legat, 1616), 322; Francis Junius, Animadversiones ad Controversiam Sextam Christianae Fidei, Quae et Secunda Tomi, de Purgatrio, in Opera Theological Francisi Iunii Biturigis, vol. 2 (Geneva: Samuelem Crispinum, 1613); Pierre Du Moulin, The Buckler of the Faith (London: Nathaniel Newbery, 1631), A4r; John Davenant, Colossians, comm. Col. 2:8 (p. 396); John Preston, The New Covenant; or, The Saints Portion (London: Nicolas Bourne, 1639), 487; Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity: Consisting of Ten Books (London: William Lee, 1654), 10.3 (pp. 866–67); cf. Martinus Becanus, Disputatio de Purgatorio Calvinistarum (Moguntiae: Joannis Albini, 1609); Franciso Suarez, Summa Commentariorum ac Disputationum: De sacramentis, indulgentiis, suffragiis, Puragorio, Clavibus Ecclesiae, Sacrificio Missae, Censuris, ac Irregularitate, Tum Generatim cum Speciatim, ed. Jacques Cardon et al. (Lugduni: Iacobi Cardon & Petris Cavellat, 1627).

30. Council of Trent, sess. 25, December 3–4, 1563, first decree.

31. Council of Lyon I (1245), in The Sources of Catholic Dogma, ed. Henry Denzinger, trans. Roy J. DeFerrari (London: B. Herder, 1954), § 456 (pp. 180–81); Thomas Aquinas, Two Articles on Purgatory, in Summa Theologica, 5 vols. (Allen: Christian Classics, 1948), appendix 2 (5:3010–11).

32. Aquinas, Two Articles on Purgatory, 3010).

33. Council of Trent, sess. 6, January 13, 1547, first decree, chap. 10.

34. Benedictus Pererius, Commentariorum et Disputationum in Genesim, vol. 3 (Lugduni: Horatii Cardon, 1601), comm. Gen. 15, disp. 4, §§ 48–51 (pp. 249–53); Robert Bellarmine, De Iustificatione Impii Libri Quinque, 4.18, in Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini (Neapoli: Josephhum Giuliano, 1858), 593–97.

35. Richard Hooker, A Learned Discourse of Justification, Works, and How the Foundation of Faith Is Overthrown, §§ 4–5, in The Works of Mr. Richard Hooker in Eight Books of The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 3 vols. (London: W. Baynes and Son, 1821), 3:339–41.

36. Jeremias Bastingius, An Exposition or Commentarie upon the Catechisme of Christian Religion (Cambridge: John Legat, 1589), q. 60 (fol. 85); William Perkins, A Golden Chaine, § 51, in The Workes of That Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ, in the Universitie of Cambridge, Mr. William Perkins (London: John Legat, 1616), 96; Robert Rollock, A Treatise of Our Effectual Calling, chap. 5, in Select Works of Robert Rollock, ed. William Gunn, 2 vols. (1844–1849; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2008), 1:60–61; Andrew Willet, Hexapla in Genesin, That Is, a Sixfold Commentary upon Genesis (London: Thomas Creede, 1608), comm. Genesis 15 (p. 179); Thomas Cartwright, A Confutation of the Rhemists Translation, Glosses and Annotations on the New Testament (Leiden: William Brewster, 1618), comm. Rom. 4:6 (p. 341); Pierre Du Moulin, The Buckler of the Faith (London: Nathaniel Newbery, 1631) 158–59; Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened (Edinburgh: Robert Broun, 1655), 1.19 (p. 158); Francis Roberts, Mysterium et Medulla Bibliorum: The Mysterie and Marrow of the Bible (London: Goerge Calvert, 1657), 3.3, aphor. 5, q. 4 (p. 622).

37. Anthony Burgess, The True Doctrine of Justification Asserted and Vindicated, 2nd ed. (London: Thomas Underhill, 1654), serm. 16 (p. 151); Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2012), 49.

38. Burgess, Doctrine of Justification, 151.

39. Lodewijk de Dieu, Animadversiones in D. Pauli Apostoli Epistolam ad Romans (Lugduni Batavorum: Elzeviriorum, 1646), comm. Rom. 8:4 (pp. 105–10); Calvin, Institutes, 3.17.8; Martin Bucer, Metaphrasis et Enarratio in Epist. D. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos (Basilae: Petrum Pernam, 1562), comm. Romans 2 (p. 119); cf. Girolamo Zanchi, De Religione Christiana Fides—Confession of Christian Religion, ed. Luca Baschera and Christian Moser, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 19.11 (1:347).

40. Calvin, Institutes, 3.17.8.

41. De Dieu, Animadversiones, 110. De Dieu also cites Calvin, Institutes, 3.17.5 to the same effect.

42. John Calvin, Acts 1–13, in CNTC (1968; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), comm. Acts 10:35 (pp. 308–9).

43. Zanchi, De Religione, 19.11 (pp. 347–49).

44. Hans Boersma, A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification in Its Seventeenth-Century Context of Controversy (Vancouver: Regent College, 2004), 33; cf. Richard Baxter, Aphorismes of Justification (1649; Hague: Abraham Brown, 1655); Burgess, Doctrine of Justification, serm. 23 (p. 220); John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification, in The Works of John Owen, 24 vols. (1850–1853; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1993), 5:284–85, 137–40.

45. Several of the divines identified that Arminius was heterodox on justification (William Twisse, The Riches of God’s Love unto the Vessells of Mercy, vol. 1 [Oxford: Thomas Robinson, 1653], 80; Robert Baillie, “Sermon on Zechariah 3:1–2, 28 February 1644,” in Sermons Preached before the English Houses of Parliament by the Scottish Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly of Divines 1643–1645, ed. Chris Coldwell [Dallas: Naphtali, 2011], 208–9; George Walker, Socinianisme in the Fundamental Point of Justification Discovered, and Confuted [London: John Bartlet, 1641], 66–69).

46. Jacob Arminius, Private Disputation, 48.12, in The Works of James Arminius, ed. and trans. James Nichols and William Nichols, 3 vols. (1825–1875; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 2:407; cf. Heidelberg Catechism, qq. 56, 59–60; Belgic Confession, 22–23; Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, n.d.), 324–40; Caspar Olevianus, A Firm Foundation: An Aid to Interpreting the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. and ed. Lyle D. Bierma (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 324–42; William Perkins, A Golden Chaine; or, The Description of Theologie, Containing the Order of the Causes of Salvation and Damnation, according to God’s Word (London: Edward Alde, 1592), 49.3–4; Johannes Polyander, André Rivet, Antonius Thysius, and Antonius Waleaeus, Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, ed. Herman Bavinck (Lugduni Batavorum: Didericum Donner, 1881), 33.8 (p. 332).

47. Jacob Arminius, A Letter to Hippolytus a Collibus, in Works, 2:725; also Arminius, Apology or Defence, § 2, in Works, 1:741–42.

48. Cf. Brian Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification: Reformation Theology and Early Modern Irenicism (Oxford: OUP, 2010).

49. Burgess, Doctrine of Justification, serm. 16 (p. 152).

50. Ibid., serm. 16 (pp. 152–53).

51. Ibid., serm. 16 (p. 153).

52. Leigh, Body of Divinity, 10.2 (pp. 860–61).

53. Johannes Maccovius, Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644) on Theological and Philosophical Rules, trans. Willem J. van Asselt et al. (Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009), 20.5 (p. 277).

54. Ball, Great Expectation, 224–25.

55. Francisco Ribera, In Sacram Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistae Apocalypsin Commentarii (Lugduni: Ex Officina Iuntarum, 1593), comm. Rev. 19:8 (p. 358).

56. David Pareus, A Commentary upon the Divine Revelation of the Apostle and Evangelist John (Amsterdam: C. P., 1644), comm. Rev. 19:8 (pp. 482–83).

57. So Marlorat, A Catholike Exposition upon the Revelation of Sainct John, fol. 265; Bullinger, Apocalips, serm. 82 (pp. 564–65); Dutch Annotations, comm. Rev. 19:8; cf. Annotations, comm. Rev. 19:8.

58. Richard Sibbes, The Brides Longing for Her Bride-Groomes Second Comming (London: R. Harford, 1638), 82–83.

59. William Bridge, The Saints Hiding-Place In the Time of Gods Anger (London: Peter Cole, 1646), 24.

60. Ibid., 25.

61. James Ussher, A Body of Divinitie; or, The Summe and Substance of Christian Religion (London: Thomas Downes and George Badger, 1645), 445–46.

62. Ibid., 447.

63. Ibid., 448.

64. Ibid., 449.

65. Thomas Watson, A Body of Practical Divinity (London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1692), 239–41.

66. William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden (1968; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 1.41.3, 19 (pp. 214–15).

67. Ibid., 1.41.22 (p. 216).

68. William Perkins, An Exposition of the Symbole of the Apostles, in The Workes of That Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ, in the Universitie of Cambridge, Mr. William Perkins (London: John Legat, 1616), 264; Johannes Wollebius, Compendium Theologiae Christianae, 1.35.6–12, in Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John W. Beardslee (Oxford: OUP, 1965), 184; Gulielmus Bucanus, Body of Divinity; or, Institutions of Christian Religion (London: Daniel Pakeman, Abel Roper, and Richard Tomlins, 1659), 38 (pp. 494–95); Benedict Pictet, Christian Theology, trans. Frederick Reyroux (London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1834), 9.4 (p. 418); John Flavel, An Exposition of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism, in The Works of John Flavel, 6 vols. (1820; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1997), 6:214; John Edwards, Theologia Reformata; or, The Body and Substance of the Christian Religion (London: John Lawerence, 1713), 456; Thomas Adams, A Commentary or, Exposition upon the Divine Second Epistle General Written by the Blessed Apostle St. Peter (London: Jacob Bloome, 1633), comm. 2 Pet. 3:7 (p. 1239); Francis Junius, The Apocalyps, or Revelation of S. John the Apostle (Cambridge: John Legat, 1596), comm. Rev. 19:8 (p. 248); Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1992–1997), 16.9.11. See also the appendix at the end of this chapter.

69. Richard Baxter, The Saints Everlasting Rest (London: Thomas Underhill, 1651), 1.5.1 (p. 49).

70. Cf. Heidelberg Catechism, qq. 52, 62; Belgic Confession, 37; Second Helvetic Confession, 16.10; Thirty-Nine Articles, 18, 22.

71. Generally on the question of millennialism, see Derek Thomas, “The Eschatology of the Westminster Confession and Assembly,” in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, ed. J. Ligon Duncan, 3 vols. (Fearn: Christian Focus, 2003–2009), 2:351–71.

72. Augsburg Confession, 18; cf., e.g., Thomas Müntzer, “Sermon before the Princes: An Exposition of the Second Chapter of Daniel, 13 July 1524,” in Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, ed. George Hunston Williams, LCC (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1952), 49–70.

73. Calvin, Institutes, 3.25.5.

74. Second Helvetic Confession, 11.14.

75. Wilkinson, Articles of the Church of England, 99

76. Johannes Heinrich Alsted, The Beloved City; or, The Saints Reign on Earth a Thousand Years; Asserted and Illustrated from LXV Places of Holy Scripture (London, 1643); Johannes Piscator, In Apocalypsin Johannis Commentarius (Herborn: Christoph Corvini, 1613); Joseph Mede, The Key of Revelation, Searched and Demonstrated out of the Naturall and Proper Charecters of the Visions (London: Phil Stephens, 1643).

77. Mede, Key of the Revelation, fols. A3r–B4v.

78. William Twisse to Joseph Mede, “Epistle XLII, 2 March 1634,” in The Works of the Pious and Profoundly-Learned Joseph Mede (London: Richard Royston, 1672), 799; Jeffrey K. Jue, Heaven upon Earth: Joseph Mede (1586–1638) and the Legacy of Millenarianism (Dordrecht: Springer, 2006), 184.

79. Jue, Heaven upon Earth, 184.

80. Ibid., 177–78.

81. Thomas Goodwin, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Ephesians, serm. 33, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin, 12 vols. (1861–1866; Eureka: Tanski, 1996), 1:506; Jue, Heaven upon Earth, 178.

82. William Ames to Joseph Mede, “Epistle XXVII, 11 October,” in Works, 782; Jue, Heaven upon Earth, 215; cf. Daniel Van Laren (pseudo. Theocritus Justus), In Apocalypsin Beati Johannis Theologi (1627).

83. Jue, Heaven upon Earth, 217–28; William Ames to Joseph Mede, “Epistle XXVIII, 27 May” in Works, 782–83.

84. Johannes Maccovius, Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules, trans. Willem J. van Asselt et al. (Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009), 19.6 (p. 273).

85. Antonius Walaeus, De Chiliastarum Opinione, in Opera Omnia, 2 vols. (Lugduni Batavorum: Ex Officina F. Hackii, 1643), 1:537–58; Gisbert Voetius, De Regno Millenario, in Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum, pt. 2 (Utrecht: Johannem à Waesberge, 1654), 1249–66; Moïse Amyraut, Du regne de mille anes ov de la prosperite de l’eglise (Saumur: Isaac Desbordes, 1654); Jue, Heaven upon Earth, 228–33.

86. Robert Baillie, “Letter to Mr. Spang, 4 Sept 1645,” in The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Robert Ogle, 1841), 313; cf. John Forbes, Instructiones Historico-Theologiae: De Doctrina Christiana & vario Rerum Statu, Ortisque Erroribus & Controversiis, Jam Inde a Temporibus Apostlicis, ad Tempora Usque Seculi Decimi-Septimi Priora (Amsterdam: Ludovicum Elzevirium, 1645).

87. Baillie, “Letter to Mr. Spang,” 313.

88. Robert Baillie, A Dissuasive from the Errours of the Time: Wherein the Tenets of the Principall Sects, Especially of the Independents, Are Drawn Together in One Map (London: Samuel Gellibrand, 1645), 11 (pp. 224–52).

89. Cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.26.1–2, in ANF 1:351–52.

90. Baillie, Errours of the Time, 224; cf. Robert Maton, Christs Personall Reigne on Earth, One Thousand Yeares with His Saints the Manner, Beginning, and Continuation of His Reigne Cearly Proved (London: John Hancock, 1652); John Archer, The Personal Reign of Christ upon Earth in a Treatise Wherein Is Fully and Largely Laid Open and Proved That Jesus Christ, Together with the Saints, Shall Visibly Possess a Monarchiacal State and Kingdom in This World (London: Benjamin Allen, 1642).

91. Baillie, Errours of the Time, 225–33.

92. Ibid., 234

93. Ibid., 237.

94. William Whitaker, An Answere to the Ten Reasons of Edmund Campian (London: Felix Kyngston, 1606), 126; John Rainolds, The Summe of the Conference between John Rainoldes and John Hart: Touching the Head and the Faith of the Church (London: George Bishop, 1598), 8.2 (p. 406); Cartwright, A Confutation of the Rhemists Translation, comm. Rev. 20:6 (p. 756); Thomas Edwards, The First and Second Part of Gangraena; or, A Catalogue and Discovery of Many of the Errors, Heresies, Blasphemies and Pernicious Practices of the Sectaries of This Time (London: Ralph Smith, 1646), 15; Roberts, Mysterium et Medulla Bibliorum, 4.1, aphor. 1 (pp. 1242–43); Richard Baxter, The Life of Faith (London: R. W., 1670), 28 (pp. 594–607); Giovanni Diodati, Pious and Learned Annotations upon the Holy Bible (London: Nicolas Fussell, 1651), comm. Rev. 20:3.