Catholicity and the Covenant of Works: James Ussher and the Reformed Tradition (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology) [1 ed.] 9780197514184, 9780197514191, 9780197514207, 9780197514214, 0197514189

Table of contents :
Cover
Series
Catholicity and the Covenant of Works
Copyright
Dedication
Contents
Acknowledgments
List of Abbreviations
Introduction
1. James Ussher, Covenant Theology, and Theological Contexts
2. The Content of the Covenant of Works
3. Developing and Debating the Covenant of Works
4. The Covenant of Works and Predestination
5. The Covenant of Works and Christology
6. The Covenant of Works and the Doctrines of Salvation
Conclusion
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Catholicity and the Covenant of Works

OX F O R D S T U D I E S I N H I S T O R IC A L T H E O L O G Y Series Editor

Richard A. Muller, Calvin Theological Seminary

Founding Editor

David C. Steinmetz †

Editorial Board

Robert C. Gregg, Stanford University George M. Marsden, University of Notre Dame Wayne A. Meeks, Yale University Gerhard Sauter, Rheinische Friedrich-​Wilhelms-​Universität Bonn Susan E. Schreiner, University of Chicago John Van Engen, University of Notre Dame Robert L. Wilken, University of Virginia AUGUSTINE, THE TRINITY, AND THE CHURCH A Reading of the Anti-Donatist Sermons Adam Ployd

ANTOINE DE CHANDIEU The Silver Horn of Geneva’s Reformed Triumvirate Theodore G. Van Raalte

AUGUSTINE’S EARLY THEOLOGY OF IMAGE A Study in the Development of Pro-Nicene Theology Gerald Boersma

ORTHODOX RADICALS Baptist Identity in the English Revolution Matthew C. Bingham

PATRON SAINT AND PROPHET Jan Hus in the Bohemian and German Reformations Phillip N. Haberkern JOHN OWEN AND ENGLISH PURITANISM Experiences of Defeat Crawford Gribben

DIVINE PERFECTION AND HUMAN POTENTIALITY The Trinitarian Anthropology of Hilary of Poitiers Jarred A. Mercer THE GERMAN AWAKENING Protestant Renewal after the Enlightenment, 1815–​1848 Andrew Kloes

MORALITY AFTER CALVIN Theodore Beza’s Christian Censor and Reformed Ethics Kirk M. Summers

THE REGENSBURG ARTICLE 5 ON JUSTIFICATION Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? Anthony N. S. Lane

THE PAPACY AND THE ORTHODOX A History of Reception and Rejection Edward Siecienski

AUGUSTINE ON THE WILL A Theological Account Han-​luen Kantzer Komline

DEBATING PERSEVERANCE The Augustinian Heritage in Post-​Reformation England Jay T. Collier

THE SYNOD OF PISTORIA AND VATICAN II Jansenism and the Struggle for Catholic Reform Shaun Blanchard

THE REFORMATION OF PROPHECY Early Modern Interpretations of the Prophet & Old Testament Prophecy G. Sujin Pak

CATHOLICITY AND THE COVENANT OF WORKS James Ussher and the Reformed Tradition Harrison Perkins

Catholicity and the Covenant of Works James Ussher and the Reformed Tradition HA R R I S O N P E R K I N S

1

3 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2020 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Perkins, Harrison, author. Title: Catholicity and the covenant of works : James Ussher and the Reformed tradition /​Harrison Perkins. Description: New York, NY, United States of America : Oxford University Press, 2020. | Series: Oxford studies in historical theology | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020003954 (print) | LCCN 2020003955 (ebook) | ISBN 9780197514184 (hardback) | ISBN 9780197514191 (updf)| ISBN 9780197514207 (epub) | ISBN 9780197514214 (online) Subjects: LCSH: Ussher, James, 1581–​1656. | Church of Ireland—​Doctrines—​History—​17th century. | Covenant theology—​History of doctrines—​17th century. | Reformed Church—​Doctrines—​History—​17th century.  | Predestination—​History of doctrines—​17th century. | Jesus Christ—​History of doctrines—​17th century. | Salvation—​History of doctrines—​17th century. Classification: LCC BX5595.U8 P46 2020 (print) | LCC BX5595.U8 (ebook) | DDC 283.092—​dc23 LC record available at https://​lccn.loc.gov/​2020003954 LC ebook record available at https://​lccn.loc.gov/​2020003955 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America

For Sarah, in deepest thanks to be in covenant with you

Contents Acknowledgments List of Abbreviations

Introduction 1. James Ussher, Covenant Theology, and Theological Contexts

ix xiii

1 4

2. The Content of the Covenant of Works

41

3. Developing and Debating the Covenant of Works

85

4. The Covenant of Works and Predestination

126

5. The Covenant of Works and Christology

166

6. The Covenant of Works and the Doctrines of Salvation

209

Conclusion Bibliography Index

254 267 289

Acknowledgments I am grateful even for the chance to have written on James Ussher, and those who have made it possible have my deepest gratitude. The most material thanks must go to Crawford Gribben, my former supervisor at Queen’s University Belfast, for his tireless reading, editing, and commenting on many drafts of this work. I am inestimably grateful for his long hours of work on my project and the way he has shaped my thinking about everything we do as scholars, and also for his (if he will permit) friendship over these last several years. It was a real privilege to study under his tutelage. Ian W. S. Campbell also read and commented on all but one of these chapters, and his guidance in the field of intellectual history and insight into proper historical method have been a rudder into a more precise way of sorting difficult issues. Martyn Cowan of Union Theological College in Belfast also read and commented on most of this work, and his advice on the broader social dynamics at work in theological discussion was indispensable. I am especially grateful to Todd M. Rester for his hours of tutoring me in Latin and reading over my translation work. Todd was a welcome American friend in Belfast and has quickly become one of my favorite people. It would be very difficult to overstate my appreciation for Todd as a friend and as a scholar. Richard Snoddy has been a true gentleman and essential friend as he welcomed me into Ussher studies and gave inestimably helpful guidance, especially in the early phases of my research. John Fesko has also been a faithful conversation partner and encourager, and I am grateful for his support as well as his knowledge of covenant theology. Thanks also to Bryan Estelle for his feedback on Chapter 3. I assuredly must thank Stephen Hampton and Michael McClenahan, who examined my PhD thesis, for their helpful input about the Reformed and Conformist traditions. I also must thank the anonymous examiners at Oxford University Press for suggestions that improved the work overall. Thanks to Michael Lynch for looking over my brief discussion of John Davenant and providing me with a copy of his dissertation. Of course, I am responsible for any lingering mistakes and inaccuracies throughout this study. I certainly need to thank as well Matt Bingham for his inexhaustible insight about moving overseas and his friendship in Belfast and London, Karie Schultz for her good

x Acknowledgments humor and friendship in our Latin seminars, Floris Verhaart for his help with some difficult Latin reconstructions, and David Whitla for conversations about paleography and puritanism. I even more must thank R. Scott Clark, who supervised a directed study paper on James Ussher’s covenant theology that was the beginning of this work, for showing me the value of covenant theology, sparking my interest its history, setting me on the trail that led to this book, and foremost for showing me how to be a Reformed churchman with a passion to read the Bible with our forebears. There have been many invaluable libraries along the way. Thanks must go preeminently to the McClay Library of Queen’s University Belfast for their ongoing help in obtaining resources. I am grateful to the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C., for funding my travel and stay to undertake research in early modern paleography at their facility. Thanks must specifically go to Heather Wolfe for her excellent training on seventeenth-​century handwriting, and for making sure that I was able to view certain manuscripts that were in less than ideal condition for consultation. I am also grateful to the librarians in the manuscripts departments at Cambridge University Library and the Bodleian Library of Oxford University. They have continually provided excellent help to a visiting student, and I am thankful for their help in locating, investigating, and using the many manuscripts connected to Ussher. Thanks must go to Amanda Saville of Queen’s College, Oxford, and Anna Sander of Baliol College, Oxford, for their assistance in accessing important sources. The archivists in the manuscripts room at Trinity College, Dublin, have put up with me sitting for entire days in their reading room, and I am grateful for their patience, and certainly for their help in accessing many of Ussher’s papers. Thanks to the British Library for making so many rich resources easily accessible. Special thanks to Ben Farwell, who sent me a copy of his thesis on Ussher, which would have been impossible to obtain through library systems. Thanks also to Calvin Theological Journal for their permission to use material from my previously published article in ­chapter 3. There seems to be countless people that deserve my personal gratitude. To David W. Hall and the session and congregation of Midway Presbyterian Church, I am infinitely thankful for granting me the ACTS doctoral scholarship each year of my studies. Your support has been invaluable. Dr. Hall has always been enthusiastic about my work and its potential, and I  only hope it does not disappoint. To the people of Trinity Fellowship Church in Chula Vista, California, none of this work would be possible without your

Acknowledgments  xi continued financial and personal support. Chris and Kayla Pinto supported us faithfully, and even made the trek from the United States to make sure my wife and I had American company for our first Christmas in the United Kingdom. Trey and Alaina Jasso have given regular financial support, and Trey has always been quick to answer text messages and provide help at every turn. Stanley McFarland has been of continual encouragement, and he and Adeline have been tremendous friends to my wife and me. Their help to let Sarah visit family will have our lasting gratitude. Michael, Helen, Victoria, Andy, and Catherine Clarke have been immensely generous to us. We could not have made it without your support and your welcoming us into so many moments of your family life. Graham Connor was gracious enough to let me work alongside him for the years I spent in Northern Ireland, and I am thankful for his professional wisdom and personal support. Matt and Erin Francisco were faithful supporters of us every month, and Matt’s confidence in my usefulness is a permanent cause of motivation. I am certainly grateful to Harry and Cindy Reeder for their early support in coming to the United Kingdom, and for Dr. Reeder’s ongoing mentorship and correspondence. Judith Riddell deserves massive thanks for welcoming us to the United Kingdom and offering us a place to stay for the first stretch of our lives there. She is a wonderful friend and a generously hospitable host. Colin Campbell, of course, needs mention for always giving me the best deals he could on books, the lifeblood of a scholar. Thanks to Moore Casement for hiring me as a lecturer at Cornhill Belfast and keeping me as lecturer when it is less convenient to do so. Allison Dossett always made sure that our update letters were displayed at New Life Presbyterian Church, La Mesa, and I am thankful not only for her faithfulness in that but also for the endless friendship she, Jim, and Jennifer have given us over the years. Ronnie and Anna Curfman have been committed friends, and their generous support has been an immense help. There are numerous people who gave us one-​time financial gifts to help us as we prepared to move internationally. There is not space to list you all, but I am grateful for your support. I owe a heavy debt of gratitude to Scott McDermand, who, for whatever reason, keeps thinking my thoughts are worth something. Thanks as well to Olan Stubbs, who offers a constant stream of personal support and advice. You have no idea how far it goes to have you in my corner. Thanks must also go to Andy Pearson, the best boss I have, but more so a friend and ally, who has been immensely supportive even in our short time as colleagues by permitting me to use time for academic studies. In that regard, I  need to thank London City Presbyterian

xii Acknowledgments Church for now having me as their assistant minister, and for encouraging me in the pursuit of rigorous study. I have been indeterminately blessed with my in-​laws, Patrick and Shirley Wade. Their support has been more than of great value, and I’m immensely thankful for them. Nana and Peepaw Wade are always more than giving and supportive, as is Nanny Moore. My father, Robert Perkins, sent boxes of American food to cure homesickness. My mom, Denise Perkins, proofread every chapter, remained interested, and helped in every way that she possibly could along the way. There is obviously no way I would have completed this work without her contributions. I owe the deepest and most substantial thanks to my wife, Sarah. She has been the champion of my work since the first moment of our life together, and in moments of delusion continues to think I am a “big deal.” She has put countless hours into making sure this work happened. She is my foremost source of earthly happiness, and words cannot do justice to the gratitude I have for her and the thanks I wish I could offer her. There is no better companion in this world for me than she is, and I am more than thankful to be in covenant with her. Harrison Perkins London, 2019

Abbreviations AH AJT Albion AMW ANF AFR English Articles

ATR BL Bodl. CH CO

CQR CTJ CTQ CUL CUP DLGTT

EEBO EQ HI HJ HLQ HTR IHS Irish Articles

Archivium Hibernicum Asia Journal of Theology Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies Anselm of Canterbury, The Major Works, edited by Brian Davies and G. R. Evans (Oxford: OUP, 1998). Ante-​Nicene Fathers, 10 volumes, edited by Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: The Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885) Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte Articles agreed upon by the archbishops and bishops of both provinces, and the whole cleargie: in the convocation holden at London, in the yeere 1562 (London, 1628) Anglican Theological Review British Library Bodleian Library Church History Ioannus Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, Corpus Reformatorum, volumes 29–​87, edited by Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, and Eduardus Reuss (Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetschke and Sons, 1864) Church Quarterly Review Calvin Theological Journal Concordia Theological Quarterly Cambridge University Library Cambridge University Press Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017) Early English Books Online Evangelical Quarterly History Ireland The Historical Journal Huntington Library Quarterly Harvard Theological Review Irish Historical Studies Articles of Religion Agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops, and the Rest of the Clergie of Ireland (Dublin, 1615)

xiv Abbreviations ITQ JBQ JBS JEH JETS JTI JTS LQHR LW

MAJT MPT MPWA

MUP NPNF ODNB OUP P&P PRJ PRDL PRRD

RHB RRR RTR SAJ SBET SC SCG

SCJ SH SJT

Irish Theological Quarterly Jewish Biblical Quarterly Journal of British Studies The Journal of Ecclesiastical History Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Theological Interpretation The Journal of Theological Studies The London Quarterly and Holborn Review William Laud, The Works of the Most Reverend Father in God, William Laud, D.D., 7 volumes, edited by W. Scott and J. Bliss (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1847–​1860) Mid-​America Journal of Theology Medieval Philosophy and Theology The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly 1643–​1652, 5 volumes, edited by Chad Van Dixhoorn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) Manchester University Press Nicene and Post-​Nicene Fathers, Series 1, edited by Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library) Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Oxford University Press Past & Present Puritan Reformed Journal Post-​Reformation Digital Library Richard A. Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 2nd ed., 4 volumes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003) Reformation Heritage Books Reformation and Renaissance Review Reformed Theological Review The Saint Anselm Journal Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology The Seventeenth Century Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Contra Gentiles, translated by the English Dominican Fathers, 4 volumes (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 1924) Sixteenth Century Journal Studia Hibernica Scottish Journal of Theology

Abbreviations  xv ST

TCD TS TJ TynBul UW

V&R WCF

WTJ WWP

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 5 volumes (Notre Dame, IN: Christian Classics, 1948) Trinity College, Dublin Theological Studies Trinity Journal Tyndale Bulletin James Ussher, The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher D.D., Lord Archbishop of Armagh, and Primate of All Ireland, 17 volumes, edited by Charles R. Elrington and J. H. Todd (Dublin: Hodges, Smith, and Co., 1829–​1864) Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht The humble advice of the Assembly of Divines, now by authority of Parliament sitting at Westminster, concerning a confession of faith, presented by them lately to both houses of Parliament (London: Printed for the Company of Stationers, [1646]) Westminster Theological Journal William Perkins, The Workes of That Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ in the Universitie of Cambridge, Mr. William Perkins, 3 volumes (London: John Legatt, 1626)

Introduction This book is about how James Ussher, a highly prominent Irish archbishop of the seventeenth century who stood in the Reformed tradition, integrated a doctrine called the covenant of works throughout his theological system. This doctrine taught that God made a covenant with Adam, the first person, and in this covenant offered him eternal blessings if he rendered perfect obedience during a period of probation. The deeper specifics of Ussher’s importance and the theological content of the covenant of works are explained in the first chapter and spelled out at length throughout this work, and so this introduction is meant simply to give a basic sketch of what follows. The crucial point demonstrated throughout is that Ussher used the covenant of works to inform many of the most important features of his theology. The covenant of works is most associated with the Reformed tradition, but when the interconnectedness of the various doctrines is explained, it becomes obvious that Ussher constructed his understanding of this covenant from very traditional teachings that he appropriated from the ancient and medieval church. Ussher’s unity with the Christian past shows how even theological developments in the Reformed tradition were not truly novel, which is why this study emphasizes the catholic aspects of Ussher’s doctrine of the covenant. It should be obvious that in this respect “catholic” refers not to the Roman church but to the universality of certain ideas in the Christian tradition; this point does not entail much connection between Ussher’s theology and Roman Catholicism, but it does underscore the link between the Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works and several generally accepted premises of the broader Christian past. This link creates an opportunity to explore some of the underpinning intellectual foundations of this doctrine, and this exploration reveals that many Reformed theologians built their individual formulations of the covenant of works within different and eclectic philosophical apparatuses. The present study has sought to advance our understanding of the underlying issues involved in early modern constructions of the covenant of works in more detail than any previous study has done. Further, Ussher is an interesting case study in regard to covenant theology Catholicity and the Covenant of Works. Harrison Perkins, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197514184.001.0001

2  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works because, although covenant theology is mostly associated with puritanism, Ussher was a conformist, meaning he adapted to the practices of the established church. The arguments that follow advance the notion that there were thoroughly Reformed clergy who do not fit some descriptions of the radical puritans. These points help to add nuance to our understanding of early modern religion and the complexities of doctrinal debate in the seventeenth century. This book emphatically prioritizes the use of manuscript sources. The advent of EEBO, PRDL, and other online databases that provide instant and easy access to early modern print sources has overwhelmed the scholarly world with an embarrassment of resources, but it has also made those print sources no longer a rare commodity. Due to the ready availability of original editions through these databases, this work cites early modern printings unless there is a modern scholarly edition. In these instances, the books were printed in London unless otherwise noted. Nevertheless, the cutting edge of historical research has become engagement with archival and manuscript material because those are the sources that are most difficult to access and require the most skill to decipher and analyze. For this reason, Ussher’s extant manuscripts feature prominently as some of the most important sources for understanding his theology and ministry. Previous Ussher scholars, including Alan Ford and Richard Snoddy, have used some of these manuscripts, but some have not appeared in earlier bibliographies of Ussher research. Moreover, the Latin manuscripts have been fronted as incredibly crucial windows into Ussher’s teaching because far too many studies of early modern theology in England opt for a focus on English-​language sources. These Latin manuscripts have never been translated before, and oftentimes they have needed to be reconstructed from abbreviated shorthand or from letters lost in the gutter of bound papers. Because these manuscripts are not available outside the libraries where they are housed, the characters I have supplied are indicated in square brackets, but I  have not made extended justification for my critical decisions there. Most of them follow standard abbreviations. A published edition of some of these manuscripts, which I am nearly finished preparing, will follow this work and provide a rationale for all of these reconstructive decisions. All translations of Latin and Greek texts are my own, so I have provided the original and often reconstructed Latin in the footnotes. (The only exceptions are Thomas Aquinas’s works and one work by Robert Rollock, which have modern critical translations that I have cited. Instances where I differ from these chosen translations are noted.) It

Introduction  3 is the assumption of this book that deep engagement with these manuscript sources will advance historical scholarship into a richer understanding of the minutiae of early modern religion, even those ideas that were disseminated at times outside of the public mainstream of publication and distribution, and specifically will shed the best light on the catholicity of the covenant of works and James Ussher in the Reformed tradition.

1 James Ussher, Covenant Theology, and Theological Contexts Introduction James Ussher (1581–​1656), theologian, controversialist, and archbishop of Armagh, made one of the most important contributions to the development of the doctrine of the covenant of works within the history of Reformed Protestant theology. Many Reformed theologians before Ussher had emphasized the genealogical connection between Adam and the rest of humanity, making their view of his headship more philosophically realist and grounded in biology.1 Ussher, however, developed a more legally driven view that highlighted a more forensic account of anthropology and soteriology that was grounded in God’s covenant. This book explores how Ussher constructed the covenant motif as the linchpin of his theological system. Ussher used this covenant between God and Adam in the Garden of Eden as a paradigm to understand God’s law, anthropology, human destiny, predestination, Christology, and salvation. He never wrote a treatise on covenant theology, which may explain why the secondary literature has substantially overlooked him on this issue, but he did support his theological formulations by tying them to the idea of covenant. He also preached regularly on the covenant idea and weaved it throughout his catechisms to structure several theological loci. The purpose of this work is to explore Ussher’s articulation of the covenant of works in reference to its broader significance for early modern religion. Although some studies have scratched the surface of the historical development of this covenant by looking at its growing popularity in the seventeenth century, no research has traced how it actually resulted from the convergence

1 Aaron C. Denlinger, Omnes in Adam ex pacto Dei: Ambrogio Catarino’s Doctrine of Covenantal Solidarity and Its Influence on Post-​ Reformation Reformed Theologians (Göttingen:  V&R, 2010),  38–​39. Catholicity and the Covenant of Works. Harrison Perkins, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197514184.001.0001

Ussher, Covenant Theology, Contexts  5 of important doctrinal themes latent in the Christian tradition.2 This study looks at how Ussher tied several traditional theological premises together by using the covenant of works motif. The first theme relates to metaphysics. In the medieval period, intellectualism and voluntarism were competing outlooks, with intellectualism prioritizing the mind and voluntarism prioritizing the will or choice.3 The intellectualist emphasis on the mind argued that reason was more fundamental than choice; in other words, the mind determines the will.4 God’s nature or character, therefore, governed the way that he chose to shape the created order.5 In this intellectualist view, God built an unchangeable natural law that reflected his character into creation.6 That law was unchangeable because God’s nature was immutable.7 The voluntarist emphasis on the will, on the other hand, was more arbitrary, in that voluntarists thought that God made the world according to principles he chose rather than principles he knew according to his own nature.8 God’s decisions, which were utterly free, determined how the world would work, and the law was not necessarily unchangeable, since God’s will determined its contents.9 Early modern Reformed theologians were eclectic in their appropriation of philosophical categories, and neither intellectualism nor voluntarism committed them to specific other views. As this study shows, different theologians taught very similar doctrines of the covenant of works, although some built their view on intellectualist principles and others on voluntarist principles. The point is not that either paradigm was better, nor that one was more Reformed, nor even

2 Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought:  A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly (Grand Rapids, MI: RHB, 2012), 399–​539; Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids, MI: RHB, 2012), 217–​36; R. Scott Clark, “Christ and Covenant:  Federal Theology in Orthodoxy,” in Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 425–​26. 3 Jeffrey Hause, “Thomas Aquinas and the Voluntarists,” MPT 6 (1997): 168. 4 Irena Backus, “Calvin’s Concept of Natural and Roman Law,” CTJ 38 (2003): 10–​15. 5 ST, 1a2ae.91.1. 6 David Dickson, Truths Victory over Error (Edinburgh, 1684), 137–​39; Robert von Friedburg, “The Rise of Natural Law in the Early Modern Period,” in Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–​1800 (New York: OUP, 2016), 629; Stephen J. Casselli, Divine Rule Maintained: Anthony Burgess, Covenant Theology, and the Place of the Law in Reformed Scholasticism (Grand Rapids, MI: RHB, 2016), 61–​62. 7 William Ames, Substance of Christian Religion (1659), 41; Backus, “Calvin’s Concept of Natural and Roman Law,” 11–​12. 8 Francis Oakley, “Medieval Theories of Natural Law: William of Ockham and the Significance of the Voluntarist Tradition,” Natural Law Forum (1960): 65–​83. 9 WWP 1:32 (this book typically cites original editions or the last edition prepared by the author, unless a critical text exists, but Ussher owned this 1626 edition of Perkins’ collected works); TCD MS 6, fol. 125r. Ussher certainly interacted with this version of Perkins’ writings, so it is used throughout.

6  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works that theologians were entirely consistent with one viewpoint, but simply that both outlooks were present in the period and contributed to Reformed doctrinal formulation. That said, however, this work argues that Ussher normally favored the intellectualist position and that its presuppositions were woven throughout his doctrinal views. This study uses Thomas Aquinas (1225–​ 1274) as the exemplar of the intellectualist paradigm and argues throughout that Ussher leaned in a decidedly Thomist direction. Ussher’s intellectualism connected to the covenant of works in that the terms or conditions of that covenant linked to the natural law, which is the second theme Ussher wove into the covenant of works. God made humanity in his image, and his character was reflected in the law of nature that he hardwired into them.10 Ussher taught that the covenant of works rose from this natural law, as God added the promise of eternal life as the reward for fulfilling the law.11 Ussher’s third theme tied into this doctrine was that God appointed Adam as the representative head of this covenant, which meant that Adam’s success or failure determined the eternal outcome for the rest of humanity. These three themes of philosophical intellectualism, the law’s foundational role in shaping the relationship between God and Adam, and Adam’s representative role as a head of humanity run throughout this work. These ideas were not novel in the early modern period but were embedded in the broader Christian tradition, which shows that the covenant of works itself was not novel but was an integration, repackaging, and redeploying of several catholic ideas for the purposes of furthering a thoroughly Reformed theology. There was, therefore, at least in the roots of the idea, an underlying catholicity to Ussher’s construction of the covenant of works, which is a major point that is highlighted throughout this study and is one of its fundamental claims. Another purpose of this work is to analyze the boundaries of the Reformed tradition in early modern Ireland and England.12 Ussher was a conformist, meaning that he accepted many of the practices and structures of the established church, but, as Stephen Hampton has shown, it has often been incorrectly assumed that Reformed theology in the seventeenth century conflicted with conformity.13 This view needs to be abandoned in light of someone like

10 Stephen Hampton, “Sin, Grace, and Free Choice in Post-​Reformation Reformed Theology,” in Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 237–​40; Casselli, Divine Rule Maintained,  51–​53. 11 Casselli, Divine Rule Maintained,  61–​77. 12 PRRD 1:28–​30. 13 Stephen Hampton, Anti-​Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I (Oxford: OUP, 2008), 3–​10.

Ussher, Covenant Theology, Contexts  7 Ussher.14 Alan Ford wrote, “He was a divine right, firmly royalist bishop, yet, at the same time, he was also a strong Calvinist and friend of puritans, parliamentarians and Presbyterians.”15 Ussher had connections across the ecclesiastical landscape and, moreover, held sway in a variety of camps. As will be shown, he played a major role in codifying the doctrine of the covenant of works, which became a hallmark Reformed doctrine, and his role solidifies the notion of rigorous Reformed divinity within the established church.16 His influence was far-​reaching among the Reformed, but he still maintained his conformity to the established church. More space must be made for the category of Reformed conformists because the reductionist categories of Anglicans and puritans are no longer adequate to explain the broad spectrum of divinity and churchmanship in seventeenth-​century Ireland and England.17 W. B. Patterson argued that William Perkins was essentially a conformist in the late Tudor period, and Hampton has revealed the prevalence of Reformed conformity after the Restoration.18 Ussher exemplifies the presence of Reformed conformity in the early Stuart period, and his experience suggests that this camp may well have remained the most stable theological position throughout the quickly shifting political landscape. On this note, conformity is likely best understood predominantly in terms of the established church’s canon law, a topic that has gone overlooked in the disputes about defining puritanism and which explains several features of Ussher’s career that have long been debated.19 Canon law was a disputed issue in the English church ever since its split from the Roman See, but Ussher ministered during a time when the 1604 canons were in force.20 Using canon law as a measure of conformity explains why Ussher preached in his episcopal habit, enforced wearing the surplice, and maintained worship according to 14 Peter Lake, “‘Puritans’ and ‘Anglicans’ in the Post-​Reformation Church,” in Anthony Milton (ed.), The Oxford History of Anglicanism, Volume I:  Reformation and Identity, c.  1520–​ 1662 (New York: OUP, 2017), 352–​79; Stephen Hampton, “The Manuscript Sermons of Archbishop John Williams,” JEH 62, no. 4 (2011): 707–​25. 15 Alan Ford, “One Church, Two Histories:  The Jacobean and the Caroline Traditions in the Church of Ireland, 1600–​2000,” in Mark Empey, Alan Ford, and Miriam Moffitt (eds.), The Church of Ireland and Its Past: History, Interpretation and Identity (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2017), 297. 16 Stephen Hampton, “Confessional Identity,” in Oxford History of Anglicanism, 210–​27. 17 Kenneth Fincham and Stephen Taylor, “Episcopalian Identity, 1640–​1662,” in Oxford History of Anglicanism, 457–​81; Stephen Hampton, “Richard Holdsworth and the Antinomian Controversy,” JTS 62, no. 1 (April 2011): 218–​50; Hampton, “Confessional Identity,” 210–​27. 18 W. B. Patterson, William Perkins and the Making of Protestant England (New York: OUP, 2014), 40–​63; Hampton, Anti-​Arminians,  1–​38. 19 I  appreciate Stephen Hampton’s comments in person that motivated me to think along these lines. 20 Gerald Bray, “Canon Law and the Church of England,” in Oxford History of Anglicanism, 168–​85.

8  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works the Book of Common Prayer but omitted certain ceremonial practices and neglected to set the communion tables altarwise, as they had been under papal authority, when Archbishop William Laud commanded it.21 Canon law required certain clerical dress and use of liturgical forms, but it did not demand—​even if it defended—​bowing at Jesus’ name, making the sign of the cross, or setting the communion tables altarwise.22 Ussher not only preferred things otherwise but also knew that historical practice varied on these issues.23 Ussher’s personal practice, which differed from what he required of all the ministers under his jurisdiction, and his flexibility on these issues during the 1630s and 1640s likely related to the differences between the English and Irish ecclesiastical canons on issues such as dress and prayer book subscription, and those differences certainly complicate the issue of using canon law to describe conformity and puritanism more accurately.24 More to the point, however, Ussher’s emphatic use of the covenant of works and its intersecting themes underscores his commitment to broad catholicity as well as to rigorous Reformed divinity, and he does not appear to have thought that these theological commitments conflicted with his conforming ecclesiology. Ussher’s use of the covenant of works needs to be framed within the broader Reformed development of covenant theology. Protestants always prioritized doctrinal clarity and precision, and covenant theology was part of the ongoing Reformation endeavor to refine and integrate the elements of biblical doctrine.25 God’s relationship to humanity and the coordination of grace and works were perennial debates among the Reformed, and covenant theology was one of several structures that Reformed theologians designed to address these issues.26 Some of the earliest Reformed uses of covenant were implemented to relate justification and sanctification in light of Roman Catholic criticisms, but the idea of covenant was increasingly used to

21 Nicholas Bernard, Clavi Trabales (London, 1661), 57–​61; Alan Ford, James Ussher: Theology, History, and Politics in Early-​Modern Ireland and England (New York: OUP, 2007), 56, 164–​73, 205–​6; Kenneth Fincham, “The Restoration of Altars in the 1630s,” HJ 44, no. 4 (December 2001): 919–​40. 22 [Church of England], Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiasticall (1604), canons IV, VI, XIIII, XVI, XVII, XXIIII, XXV, LVIII, LXXXII. 23 E.g., The Correspondence of James Ussher, 1600–​56, ed. Elizabethanne Boran, 3 vols. (Dublin: Irish Manuscripts Commission, 2015), 1:250 (letter to John Selden dated April 16, 1622). 24 [Church of Ireland], Constitutions, and Canons Ecclesiastical (Dublin, 1635); Ford, Ussher, 178–​97. 25 Willem J.  van Asselt, “Christ, Predestination, and Covenant in Post-​Reformation Reformed Theology,” in Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 222–​23. 26 David A. Weir, The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-​Century Reformation Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 1–​36; Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 45–​52; Clark, “Christ and Covenant,” 425–​26.

Ussher, Covenant Theology, Contexts  9 organize the full range of doctrine—​which Ussher would have described as the “body of divinity.”27 Later developments in covenant theology included the identification of two foundational covenants to govern humanity’s relationship to God.28 The covenant of works bound God to Adam so that Adam could earn eternal paradise for himself and his posterity, but the covenant of grace was God’s single plan to provide salvation in Christ across all eras of history.29 Ussher adopted these conventions but also furthered them by modifying older versions of the covenant of works and codifying them into the confessional mainstream. Ussher led that codification as the primary composer of the Irish Articles (1615), which was the first Protestant confession to include explicitly the covenant that God made with Adam.30 Other confessions defended the unity of Old and New Testaments by using the covenant idea, but they never identified this prelapsarian covenant as an official church doctrine. The Articles pushed this covenantal formulation into the Reformed confessional mainstream, and this confession’s importance should not be underestimated. The Articles, formally authoritative from 1615 to 1634, delineated the established church’s commitment to Reformed Protestantism, and Ireland’s predominantly Roman Catholic context may explain the confession’s new specificity on matters such as the covenant of works.31 Regardless, when Parliament convened the Westminster Assembly as a theological advisory committee in the 1640s, the divines used the Irish Articles as a source document for their confession.32 27 Richard A. Muller, “Reformed Theology Between 1600 and 1800,” in Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 173–​76; R. Scott Clark, Casper Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant: The Double Benefit of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: RHB, 2008), chs. 6–​7. 28 Robert Letham, “The Foedus Operum:  Some Factors Accounting for Its Development,” SCJ 14, no. 4 (1983):  457–​67; Michael McGiffert, “Grace and Works:  The Rise of Covenant Divinity in Elizabethan Puritanism,” HTR 75, no. 4 (1982):  463–​502; Michael McGiffert, “From Moses to Adam: The Making of the Covenant of Works,” SCJ 19, no. 2 (Summer 1988): 131–​55; Michael McGiffert, “Federal Theology,” in Francis J. Bremer and Tom Webster (eds.), Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America:  A Comprehensive Encyclopedia (Santa Barbara, CA:  ABC-​CLIO, 2006), 2:395–​96; Richard A. Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in Seventeenth-​ Century Reformed Orthodoxy,” CTJ 29 (1994): 75–​101. 29 DLGTT, “foedus gratiae” and “foedus operum,” 128–​29, 130–​31; Muller, “Reformed Theology,” 174–​76; van Asselt, “Christ, Predestination, and Covenant,” 221–​25. 30 Ford, Ussher, 85–​103. 31 S. J. Connolly, Contested Island:  Ireland 1460–​1630 (Oxford:  OUP, 2007), 37; S. J. Connolly, Divided Kingdom: Ireland 1630–​1800 (Oxford: OUP, 2008), 17–​22; Tadgh O’Hannrachain, Catholic Reformation in Ireland: The Mission of Riniccini, 1645–​1649 (Oxford: OUP, 2002), 3. 32 Robert Bailie, Life of William, Now Lord Arch-​Bishop of Canterbury Examined (1643), 15, 21; Thomas Bayly, Certamen Religiosum (1651), 256, 325–​26; William Bridge cited Ussher in his unpaginated preface to John Brinsley, Gospel-​Marrow (1659); Cornelius Burges, Case Concerning the Buying of Bishops Lands (1659), 27; Cornelius Burges, Reasons Shewing the Necessity of Reformation (1660), 53; Cornelius Burges, No Sacrilege nor Sin to Alienate or Purchase Cathedral Lands (1660),

10  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Apart from Ussher’s personal success within the church by law established, his Irish Articles helped shape Reformed theology across and beyond the churches of the three Stuart kingdoms by influencing the divines at the Westminster Assembly.33

35, 59, 60; Edmund Calamy, The City Remembrancer (1657), 13; Francis Cheynell, Sions Memento (1643), 25, 26; Francis Cheynell, Chillingworthi novissima (1644), sig. D4v, sig. E2r; Francis Cheynell, Divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (1650), 259, 296, 299, 363; James Durham, Commentarie upon the Book of the Revelation (Edinburgh, 1658), 341, 499; James Durham, A Practical Exposition of the X Commandements (1675), sig. D2v–​D3r; James Durham, The Law Unsealed (Glasgow, 1676), [to the reader, 7]; John Dury, An Earnest Plea for a Gospel-​Communion (1654), 79–​83; John Dury, Summarie Account of Mr. Iohn Dury’s Former and Latter Negotiation (1657), 7; John Dury, The Earnest Breathings of Foreign Protestants (1658), 45–​46; Daniel Featley, Romish Fisher Caught and Held in His Owne Net (1624), sig. K3v, sig. P3v; Daniel Featley, Roma Ruens, Romes Ruine (1644), 33; Daniel Featley, The Dippers Dipt (1645), 12; Daniel Featley, The League Illegal (1660), 24, 39; Thomas Gataker, Last Will and Testament of Thomas Gataker (1654), 4; George Gillespie, Dispute Against the English-​Popish Ceremonies ([Leiden], 1637), 3.4.9, 3.4.13, 3.8.1 (this work is cited as part, chapter, section, e.g., 1.1.1); Thomas Goodwin, Of the Knowledge of God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, in Thankfull Owen and James Barron (eds.), Works of Thomas Goodwin (1683), 16; Henry Hammond, Letter of Resolution (1653), 463; Henry Hammond, Vindication of the Dissertations Concerning Episcopacie (1654), 41, 60, 146–​47, 150–​51; Henry Hammond, Answer to the Animadversions (1654), 9, 10–​11, 16, 24; Henry Hammond, Paraphrase of Annotations upon All the Books of the New Testament (1659), sig. A3r–​A3v, 865, 875; Thomas Hill, Best and Worst of Paul (Cambridge, 1648), 15; Joshua Hoyle, A Reioynder to Master Malones Reply Concerning Reall Presence (Dublin, 1641), sig. C3r–​C4v; Edward Leigh, Treatise of Divinity (1646), 119; Edward Leigh, Annotations upon All the New Testament Philologicall and Theologicall (1650), 147, 148, 186–​87; Edward Leigh, Treatise of Religion & Learning (1656), sig. A3r–​A4v.; Edward Leigh, Annotations on Five Poetical Books of the Old Testament (1657), sig. A4r; Edward Leigh, Foelix Consortium (1663), sig. A3r–​A4v; John Ley, Letter (Against the Erection of an Altar) Written in Iune 29, 1635 (1641), 12; John Ley, Defensive Doubts (1641), sig. B2v–​B3r; John Ley, Sunday a Sabbath (1641), sig. A2r–​C2r; Stephen Marshall, Defense of Infant-​Baptism (1646), 34; William Nicholson, Ekthesis Pisteos (1661), 38; Samuel Rutherford, Divine Right of Church-​ Government and Excommunication (1645), 5–​6, 52, 59; John Selden, Dominion, or Ownership of the Sea (1652), 274; William Twisse, Riches of Gods Love unto the Vessells of Mercy (Oxford, 1653), 1.58. 1.59, 2.13, 2.89, 2.90 (this work is cited as book and page number, e.g., 1.21); John Wallis, A Defence of the Royal Society (1678), 26; Thomas Westfield, England’s Face in Israel’s Glass (1646), 2.76, 2.77 (the pagination restarts in this book, so I have indicated that this is the second round of numbering by citing it as 2.76); Harrison Perkins, “The Westminster Assembly’s Probable Appropriation of James Ussher,” SBET 37, no. 1 (Spring 2019): 45–​63; Alan Ford, “Irish Articles (1615),” in Puritans and Puritanism, 430–​32; Richard A. Muller, “‘Inspired by God—​Pure in All Ages’: The Doctrine of Scripture in the Westminster Confession,” in Richard A. Muller and Roland S. Ward, Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation and the Directory for Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2007), 40–​41; Alexander F. Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly: Its History and Standards (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1884), 372–​85; Phillip Schaff (ed.), The Creeds of Christendom, 6th ed. (New York: Harper, 1931; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 1:665; B. B. Warfield, The Westminster Assembly and Its Work (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1959; repr., Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books, 1991), 1–​257; Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009), 62–​83, 224–​41; J. V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards:  Historical Context and Theological Insights (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), 60, 125–​68; John McCafferty, “Ireland and Scotland, 1534–​1663,” in Oxford History of Anglicanism, 251; Ford, Ussher, 140 n. 38.

33 Muller, “Reformed Theology,” 170.

Ussher, Covenant Theology, Contexts  11

Framing Ussher Research Ussher’s biography, particularly in regard to his ecclesiastical and scholarly output, sheds light on his significance for the early modern period. He was born into a prominent Dublin family on January 4, 1581, later becoming one of Trinity College, Dublin’s first students and most influential teachers. As the bishop of Meath (1621–​25) and archbishop of Armagh (1625–​56), his international repute as a scholarly polymath helped him become the most significant leader of the Church of Ireland in the seventeenth century.34 Today he is most famous for suggesting that creation occurred “the night preceding the twenty-​third day of October” in 4004 BC, but this minor claim in a massive cross-​disciplinary account of world history focused on the transmission of pure doctrine should actually highlight the large scale of Ussher’s scholarship, which made him an authority in theology, history, and linguistics.35 He was in fact renowned well beyond his own churchly and scholarly circles, and various opposing parties competed for his legacy.36 James I  esteemed Ussher, and even William Laud, the anti-​Calvinist archbishop of Canterbury, respected him.37 The high Calvinist Congregationalist John Owen and the controversial Presbyterian Richard Baxter, who vigorously debated each other, both attempted to link themselves to Ussher.38 The poet and propagandist John Milton trumpeted how he challenged “the giant whom no one else dared to tackle.”39 Although Ussher refused to attend the Westminster Assembly, many of its divines admired him and drew upon 34 Ford, Ussher, 1–​8; Richard Snoddy, The Soteriology of James Ussher:  The Act and Object of Saving Faith (New  York:  OUP, 2014), 1–​4; R. Buick Knox, James Ussher:  Archbishop of Armagh (Cardiff:  University of Wales Press, 1967), 7–​11; Sara Jean Clausen, “Calvinism in the Anglican Hierarchy, 1603–​1643: Four Episcopal Examples,” PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, 1989, 226–​27; Nicholas Bernard, Life and Death of the Most Reverend and Learned Father of Our Church, Dr. James Usher (1656); Richard Parr, Life of the Most Reverend Father in God, James Ussher (1686), 100. 35 James Ussher, Annales veteris testamenti (1650), 1 (in noctis illius initium, quae XXIII.  diem Octobris praecessit); Bernard, Life, 17, 54, 58–​59, 83–​85; Parr, Life, 100. 36 Alan Ford, “‘Making Dead Men Speak’: Manipulating the Memory of James Ussher,” in Mark Williams and Stephen Paul Forrest (eds.), Constructing the Past: Writing Irish History, 1600–​1800 (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 2010), 49–​69. 37 Ford, Ussher, 2. 38 Crawford Gribben, John Owen and English Puritanism: Experiences of Defeat (New York: OUP, 2016), 188–​89; Richard Baxter, Reliquiae Baxterianae (1696), Lib. I, 206. Despite his claim of familiarity with Ussher and record of a discussion on church polity, Baxter also argued that if they had half an hour together, they could have settled the English church. R. Buick Knox, “Archbishop Ussher and Richard Baxter,” The Ecumenical Review 12, no. 1 (1959): 60; R. Buick Knox, James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1967), 141, citing F. J. Powicke, A Life of the Reverend Richard Baxter, 1615–​1691 (London: Butler & Tanner, 1927), 126–​27. 39 Hugh Trevor-​Roper, Catholics, Anglicans and Puritans: Seventeenth Century Essays (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 150.

12  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works his theology.40 In 1647, Parliament appointed Ussher to preach in London’s Lincoln’s Inn, following in a tradition of well-​known preachers including John Donne (1572–​1631), and, despite Ussher’s criticism of Parliament during the civil war, they paid him an annual pension of £400 “in respect of his great Worth and Learning; of his Fame abroad.”41 The vote to appoint Ussher was not unanimous, but Parliament’s comment speaks for itself. Oliver Cromwell, England’s Lord Protector, insisted that Ussher should have a state funeral at Westminster Abbey.42 Nicholas Bernard, Ussher’s chaplain, even considered him to be a prophet.43 Ussher navigated the Scylla of royalist establishment and the Charybdis of parliamentary revolution, managing to maintain his freedom, reputation, and permission to preach until his death in 1656.44 He held people’s respect in a way that clearly transcended mid-​ seventeenth-​century party lines. Ussher’s scholarly output showed he was a master of multiple disciplines. He became famous as professor of theological controversies at Trinity College, Dublin, because of his historical books, catechesis, and theological treatises. These works reveal his emphasis on the importance of right doctrine for the church, which was also manifest in his lifelong commitment to preaching. He was the preacher to several congregations, beginning in Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin, then in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin, and later in various English pulpits. Despite his prolific output of sermons, he published mostly historical research, recording the history of Irish and British churches, investigating patristic sources, and reconstructing medieval theological controversy.45 These works were polemically charged to prove the antiquity of Protestant doctrine, and even if the methodological assumptions of his historiography differed from those of modern historians,

40 MPWA, 1:141; see note 26. 41 “House of Commons Journal Volume 5:  5 October 1647,” in Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 5, 1646–​1648 (1802), 326; “House of Commons Journal Volume 5: 20 December 1647,” in Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 5, 1646–​1648 (1802), 393–​94; “House of Lords Journal Volume 9: 8 January 1648,” in Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 9, 1646 (1767–​1830),  643. 42 Ford, Ussher, 271; Knox, Ussher,  76–​78. 43 Ute Lotz-​Heumann, “‘The Spirit of Prophecy Has Not Wholly Left the World’: The Stylisation of Archbishop James Ussher as a Prophet,” in Helen Parish and William G. Naphy (eds.), Religion and Superstition in Reformation Europe (Manchester: MUP, 1994), 119–​32. 44 Ford, Ussher, 266–​70. 45 E.g., James Ussher, Gravissimae quaestionis de Christianarum ecclesiarum (1613); James Ussher, A Discourse of the Religion Anciently Professed by the Irish and the British (1631); James Ussher, Gotteschalci, et Praedestinatianae Controversiae (Dublin, 1631); James Ussher, Britannicarum ecclesiarum antiquitates (Dublin, 1639); James Ussher, Annales, Bodl. MS e Mus. 46; Bodl. MS e Mus 47 (copies of Ussher’s original notes: BL MS Harleian 822).

Ussher, Covenant Theology, Contexts  13 his grasp of sources was astounding, allowing him to leverage them upon some of the most controversial issues of his day. Older secondary literature enlisted Ussher into debates about the date of creation or proper ecclesiastical polity, but he must be reassessed in light of more nuanced accounts of religious and national contextualization.46 Ford’s magisterial biography situated Ussher in the Irish context and showed how that context influenced his concerns.47 This approach was far more accurate than older studies that too often framed Ussher exclusively within English puritanism. R.  Buick Knox, for example, argued that Ussher’s episcopacy meant that he could not be a puritan and “certainly cannot be linked with [Walter] Travers and [Thomas] Cartwright.”48 Despite this claim, Travers taught Ussher at Trinity College, and Ussher cited Cartwright’s works as an important source for his own works, even though Cartwright was a controversial English Presbyterian.49 Knox separated Ussher from Travers and Cartwright based entirely upon English concerns, but those concerns were not preeminently Ussher’s. Knox’s problematic categorization of these figures relates to the perennial difficulty of defining the term “puritan,” and the term becomes only more confused when applied across multiple ecclesiastical contexts.50 Amanda Capern also blended Ussher into the English religious context but, in contrast to Knox, found him to be “the quintessential Jacobean puritan,” even though Ussher actually denied the charge of being

46 On creation: Robert Letham, “‘In the Space of Six Days’: The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly,” WTJ 61 (1999): 171–​72; K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 441; Mike Fluent, “James Ussher: Champion of Piety and Scholarship,” Fundamentalist Journal 6, no. 7 (July–​August 1987): 31–​33; Colin Groves, “From Ussher to Slusher, from Archbish to Gish: or, Not in a Million Years . . . ,” Archeology in Oceania 31, no. 3 (1996): 145–​51; Peter Hiscock, “The Creation of Time,” Archeology in Oceania 31, no. 3 (1996): 101–​2. On ecclesiastical polity: William M. Abbott, “James Ussher and ‘Ussherian’ Episcopacy, 1640–​1656: The Primate and His Reduction Manuscript,” Albion 22, no. 2 (1990): 237–​ 59; Henry Sloane Coffin, “An Anglican Precursor of the ‘Basic Principles,’” ATR 26, no. 1 (January 1944):  49–​51; Knox, Ussher, 113–​89; R. Buick Knox, “Archbishop Ussher and Richard Baxter,” Ecumenical Review 12, no. 1 (1959): 50–​63; R. Buick Knox, “A Caroline Trio: Ussher, Laud, and Williams,” CQR 164, no. 353 (October–​December 1963): 451–​52; Jack Cunningham, “The Eirenicon and the ‘Primitive Episcopacy’ of James Ussher: An Irish Panacea for Britannia’s Ailment,” RRR 8, no. 2 (2006): 128–​46; Bernard, Life; C. R. Elrington in UW 1:1–​322; Baxter, Reliquiae Baxterianae, Lib. I, 62. 47 Ford, Ussher, 104–​220. 48 Knox, Ussher, 140; cf. Clausen, “Calvinism in the Anglican Hierarchy,” 226–​88. 49 Correspondence of James Ussher, 3:880. 50 Ian Clary, “Hot Protestants: A Taxonomy of English Puritanism,” PRJ 2, no. 1 (2010): 41–​48; Randall J. Pederson, Unity in Diversity: English Puritanism and the Puritan Reformation 1603–​1689 (Leiden:  Brill, 2014), 1–​86; C. H. George, “Puritanism as History and Historiography,” P&P 41 (1968): 77–​104.

14  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works a puritan in order to win James I’s favor.51 Ussher’s insistence on conformity and submissive royalism as well as on the absolute divine right of kings at the very least stretches the bounds of puritanism, specifically of the English sort, if not rendering it nonsense.52 Still, the issue of whether Ussher was a puritan hinges upon definitions, since Ussher’s strong links to “puritans” such as the Cambridge controversialist Thomas Cartwright simply reaffirms that the categories of puritan and Anglican can be too sharply divided. Ussher could easily deny being a puritan if it connoted subversive behavior, specifically behavior that contradicted canon law, which this study uses as the primary reference point to distinguish puritanism and conformity, especially since the staple debates of English puritanism did not directly transpose into his own Irish context.53 Although Knox denied that Ussher could be linked to Cartwright, Ussher explicitly leaned on Cartwright to compile A Body of Divinitie (1645), which became a highly regarded work among puritan theologians.54 Elizabethanne Boran has demonstrated that Ussher’s friendship network was thoroughly puritan, which shows that Ussher cannot be properly understood if measured only by English concerns.55 Even in terms of the English context, Ussher remained a political and ecclesiastical conservative, which does not match the characterization of puritans as “the hotter sort of protestant,” but it does fit conformity to canon law, since both the Irish and English canons began with the king’s supremacy.56 Yet his soteriological emphasis on the doctrine of justification, as seen throughout this work, certainly aligned with puritan 51 Amanda Louise Capern, “Slipperye Times and Dangerous Dayes:  James Ussher and the Calvinist Reformation of Britain 1560–​1660,” PhD diss., University of New South Wales, 1991, 70; Ford, Ussher, 105; UW 1:52. 52 Ian W. S. Campbell, “Calvinist Absolutism: Archbishop James Ussher and Royal Power,” JBS 53 (July 2014): 588–​610; Ben Farwell, “James Ussher and the Divine Right of Kings: A Theory Explored,” MA thesis, Westminster Seminary California, 2016. 53 The use of canon law as the basic factor in describing—​not defining—​puritans and conformists obviously affects the debate about the end of the puritan movement. There would formally be no puritans if canon law is not in force, since the description of puritanism hinges on dissent from canon law. The puritan rejection of and objection to the contents of canon law obviously could have remained after canon law was abolished, but a formal movement within the established church that dissented from binding ecclesiastical legislation would no longer be identifiable in the same way once that legislation was nullified. 54 Ian Green, Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England (Oxford: OUP, 2000), 666; James Ussher, A Body of Divinitie, or, the Summe and Substance of Christian Religion (1645). The authorship of A Body of Divinitie is addressed later. 55 Elizabethanne Boran, “An Early Friendship Network of James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh, 1626–​1656,” in Helga Robinson-​Hammerstein (ed.), European Universities in the Age of Reformation and Counter Reformation (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998), 116–​34. 56 Lotz-​Heumann, “Spirit of Prophecy,” 123–​24; [Church of England], Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiasticall, canons I–​II; [Church of Ireland], Constitutions, and Canons Ecclesiastical, canon II.

Ussher, Covenant Theology, Contexts  15 theological concerns. These strong Reformed inclinations do explain why some of his early biographers were able to present him in a moderate puritan light, but they cannot define him as puritan because other conformists were thoroughly committed to Reformed orthodoxy.57 C. H. George’s definition of puritans as “conforming, beneficed ministers who wished to limit the concept of adiaphora [things indifferent], to improve the quality and frequency of sermons, and to influence more aggressively the ethics of the laity” describes Ussher accurately, but it may exclude many dissenters who are typically labeled puritans.58 These observations raise again the point about understanding conformity in reference to canon law, with conformists being those who accepted canon law (even if they were Reformed) and puritans being those within the established church who rejected canon law. This understanding creates a wide range of English puritanism, since it avoids defining the concept by doctrinal content and instead focuses on ecclesiastical policies, which were undoubtedly still connected to doctrine. This description—​markedly not a definition—​of puritanism as directed against canon law also removes tensions that historians have noted about Reformed conformists having puritan sympathies, since doctrine is not the primary reference point for describing a puritan. This use of canon law will not solve all the complexities involved in the issues of conformity, even for Ussher, as he worked strenuously for separate Irish canons that left far more freedom than the English ones on issues that were typically puritan concerns, which does mark Ussher’s puritan sympathies.59 Still, in this understanding, Patterson’s argument that William Perkins was not a puritan but a standard English Reformed clergyman becomes clear, since Perkins’ “puritan” doctrine was not a deviation from church canons.60 Ussher certainly preached extensively to reform the laity in doctrine and ethics, but this was all in accord with canon law.61 Reformed theologians in Ireland, facing more aggressive Roman Catholic pressure, most likely thought that the matters of actual indifference were more numerous than did their peers in England. Ussher unquestionably emphasized 57 Hampton, Anti-​Arminians, 77–​ 128; Bernard, Life; William Dillingham, Vita Laurentii Chadertoni . . . Una cum vita Jacobi Ussherii, Archiepiscopi Armachani . . . (Canterbury, 1700), 51–​100. 58 George, “Puritanism as History and Historiography,” 78; Wade Johnston, The Devil Behind the Surplice: Matthias Flacius and John Hooper on Adiaphora (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2018), 87–​149. 59 Ford, Ussher, 184–​97. 60 Patterson, William Perkins and the Making of Protestant England, 40–​63; Bray, “Canon Law in the Church of England,” 177–​80. A standard “puritan” response to canon law is found in Cornelius Burges, Reasons Showing the Necessity of Reformation (1660), 57–​63. 61 E.g., TCD MS 1173.

16  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works the puritan “key concern” for “the godly spreading of the Word.”62 Contextual factors counted, Ussher cannot be considered an English puritan, but perhaps he could be an Irish one.63 “Purification” may indeed have been perceived with different perspectives in Ireland and England, as the English Reformed wanted to extend reform beyond the Elizabethan Settlement, but the Irish Reformed struggled even to achieve a unified Protestantism in their nation.64 Perhaps Irish puritanism was more inclined to acquiesce on matters of indifference and to lean on canon law as a mechanism to further Reformed doctrine—​after all, canon law required that catechesis take place every Sunday and at one point granted authority over recusants, as Catholics would be in Ireland—​but either way, Ussher is still best understood in terms of rigorous Reformed conformity.65 Two major academic works on Ussher have appeared, but even they have not yet created critical mass to establish the crucial issues for future Ussher scholarship. Ford’s biography situated Ussher within Irish and English ecclesiastical politics and showed how Ussher worked for the independence and Protestant constitution of the Church of Ireland.66 Ford’s book is an essential starting place for Ussher scholarship, as it established the political context with which theological assessment of Ussher must reckon. More recently, Richard Snoddy initiated the historical-​theological study of Ussher, demonstrating that there was development in Ussher’s soteriology over the course of his career.67 Snoddy revealed the complexity of understanding Ussher in the context of Reformed debates and pointed to the necessity of engaging Ussher’s manuscript sources. Ford and Snoddy’s works currently define the field of Ussher research and have helped retire the worn-​out issues of creationism and episcopacy. There are, however, other lacunas within Ussher literature that must be highlighted. Theologically, Jonathan Moore and Michael Lynch have added to Snoddy’s extensive discussion of Ussher’s view of the extent of Christ’s satisfaction.68 More significantly for establishing patterns of 62 Boran, “Early Friendship Network,” 118. 63 Ford, Ussher, 52; Ford, “One Church, Two Histories,” 295; Alan Ford, “Dependent or Independent? The Church of Ireland and Its Colonial Context, 1536–​1649,” SC 10, no. 2 (1995): 170; Crawford Gribben, The Irish Puritans:  James Ussher and the Reformation of the Church (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 23–​90. 64 Bray, “Canon Law and the Church of England,” 177–​84. 65 [Church of England], Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiasticall, canons LIX, LXV–​LXVI; [Church of Ireland] Constitutions, and Canons Ecclesiastical, canons XI, XL. 66 Ford, Ussher, 119–​74, 208–​20. 67 Snoddy, Soteriology,  1–​11. 68 Snoddy, Soteriology, 40–​92; Jonathan D. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 2007), 175–​86; Michael

Ussher, Covenant Theology, Contexts  17 inquiry, newer studies of Ussher as a historian have begun to focus on his polemical purposes for writing history and have shown how he intended historical research to be a powerful weapon against Catholic claims about the antiquity of the Roman faith.69 Other scholarship, spearheaded by Elizabethanne Boran, has highlighted the polemical intent behind Ussher’s avid collection of sources.70 He helped gather materials to form the initial Trinity College library, and his personal collection of ten thousand books significantly contributed to its early catalogue.71 William O’Sullivan itemized Ussher’s manuscripts and where he obtained them, showing that they spanned biblical, theological, philological, historical, and astronomical material, to name only some of its constituent genres.72 Ussher’s collection of printed works was at least equally broad.73 Ussher’s participation in source collecting also underscores his membership in the early modern international republic of letters, as he vigorously promoted the dissemination of important texts, even when he could not obtain them for his own collection.74 Similarly to Ussher’s appropriation of historical polemic, the J.  Lynch, “John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism:  A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy,” PhD diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2019, 133–​43. 69 Alan Ford, “Shaping History: James Ussher and the Church of Ireland,” in Church of Ireland and Its Past, 19–​35; Alan Ford, “James Ussher and the Creation of an Irish Protestant Identity,” in Brendan Bradshaw and Peter Roberts (eds.), British Consciousness and Identity: The Making of Britain, 1533–​ 1707 (Cambridge:  CUP, 1998), 196–​207; Ute Lotz-​Heumann, “The Protestant Interpretation of History in Ireland: The Case of James Ussher’s Discourse,” in Bruce Gordon (ed.), Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth-​Century Europe, vol. 2, The Later Reformation (Aldershot: Scholar, 1996), 107–​20; Coleman M. Ford, “‘Everywhere, Always, by All’:  William Perkins and James Ussher on the Constructive Use of the Fathers,” PRJ 7, no. 2 (2015): 95–​111; Crawford Gribben, The Puritan Millennium: Literature and Theology, 1550–​1682, rev. ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008), 87–​ 113; Saul Leeman, “Was Bishop Ussher’s Chronology Influenced by a Midrash?,” JBQ 31, no. 3 (July–​September 2003):  195–​96; Robert W. Smith, “James Ussher:  Biblical Chronicler” ATR 41 (1959): 84–​94. 70 Elizabethanne Boran, “The Libraries of Luke Challoner and James Ussher, 1595–​1608,” in Robinson-​Hammerstein (ed.), European Universities, 75–​115; Elizabethanne Boran, “Ussher and the Collection of Manuscripts in Early Modern Europe,” in Jason Harris and Keith Sidwell (eds.), Making Ireland Roman: Irish Neo-​Latin Writers and the Republic of Letters (Cork: Cork University Press, 2009), 176–​94; Bernadette Cunningham and Raymond Gillespie, “James Ussher and His Irish Manuscripts,” SH 33 (2004–​5): 81–​99; Katherine Birkwood, “‘Our Learned Primate’ and That ‘Rare Treasurie’:  James Ussher’s Use of Sir Robert Cotton’s Manuscript Library, c.  1603–​1655,” Library and Information History 26, no. 1 (2010): 33–​42; Bernard Meehan, “The Manuscript Collection of James Ussher,” in Peter Fox (ed.), Treasures of the Library, Trinity College Dublin (Dublin: Trinity College, 1986), 97–​110; James G. Fraser, “Ussher’s Sixth Copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch,” Vetus Testamentum 21, no. 1 (January 1971): 100–​102. 71 Peter Fox, Trinity College Library Dublin (Cambridge: CUP, 2014), 6–​33. 72 William O’Sullivan, “Ussher as a Collector of Manuscripts,” Hermathena 88 (November 1956): 34–​58. 73 Boran, “Libraries of Luke Challoner and James Ussher,” 81–​109. 74 Boran, “Ussher and the Collection of Manuscripts,” 178–​89.

18  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works “tone” of his collection indicates the interest of “a Calvinist controversialist, particularly interested in refutation of Roman Catholic writers.” Even the scientific, geographic, and mathematical works that he collected reflect “the attitude of puritan divines in general to science.”75 The types of sources Ussher gathered, as well as the circles in which he shared them, underscore the ongoing connections he had to puritan networks, but those connections simply serve to mark the Reformed doctrinal commitments of Reformed conformists.76 Whatever future conclusions may come from assessing Ussher’s scholarly habits, he clearly prized the written word, but primarily for its value to the Protestant cause. These strands of scholarship related to Ussher’s gathering and use of sources leave many avenues open for further Ussher research. Ever since Ussher’s death, biographers have tried to polemicize his life. In 1656, Nicholas Bernard wrote the first biography of Ussher, presenting him as a political moderate with puritan leanings, which was of course highly palatable to the political climate of Cromwell’s Interregnum.77 Richard Parr’s 1686 biography emphasized Ussher’s “Anglican” royalism, though highlighting his anti-​Catholicism as an opposition to James II, and downplayed his puritan leanings.78 William Dillingham, former master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, followed Bernard in casting Ussher as a moderate puritan, although Stephen Hampton has called this Anglican work “Reformed hagiography.”79 Charles Elrington’s extensive nineteenth-​century account presented Ussher’s puritan vestiges as youthful indiscretions that were scrubbed away as Ussher matured into a definitive high churchman.80 He thought Ussher’s friendship with William Laud proved that Ussher had outgrown any Reformed commitments, but Capern debunked this notion as incongruous with the historical data.81 Jamie Blake Knox has shown that even Elrington’s editorial work intentionally misrepresented Ussher’s work in order to reshape his image, at least by rearranging the order of publication so as to seem that Ussher’s Reformed works were chronologically grouped 75 Boran, “Libraries of Luke Challoner and James Ussher,” 104, 85. 76 Boran, “An Early Friendship Network,” 116–​34. 77 Bernard, Life; Ford, Ussher, 5; Lotz-​Heumann, “Spirit of Prophecy,” 124–​25. 78 Alan Ford, “Past but Still Present: Edmund Borlase, Richard Parr and the Reshaping of Irish History for English Audiences in the 1680s,” in Brian MacCuarta (ed.), Reshaping Ireland 1550–​1700 (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2011), 290–​99; Ford, Ussher, 5; Parr, Life. 79 Hampton, Anti-​Arminians, 32; Dillingham, Vita Jacobi Ussherii, 51–​100. 80 UW 1:2, 92, esp. 289–​98. 81 UW 1:290; Amanda-​ Louise Capern, “The Caroline Church:  James Ussher and the Irish Dimension,” HJ 39 (1996): 57–​85.

Ussher, Covenant Theology, Contexts  19 and tapered off.82 Ford dubbed many of the succeeding biographies as “derivative” of Elrington’s.83 Buick Knox’s 1967 account of Ussher’s life is reliable, although only skimming the broader historical context, but he presented Ussher as favorable to Presbyterians, something that is not clear-​cut.84 Ussher received Presbyterians into the Church of Ireland in the 1610s–​1620s, but he always supported the imposition of episcopal polity.85 Ussher’s arguments for moderate episcopacy show he sought compromise between episcopacy and Presbyterianism and was neither a complete supporter of Presbyterians nor an undiluted Episcopal.86 Ford’s biography remains the most reliable academic account of Ussher’s life and times. Ussher’s link to covenant theology has gone significantly overlooked, but there have been a few recent albeit brief treatments. Andrew Woolsey and Scott Clark both looked at Ussher’s role in the development of covenant theology, but their focus on his relationship to other Reformed theologians understandably precluded in-​depth examination of Ussher’s particular views.87 Moreover, they discussed Ussher’s covenant theology generally, which naturally excluded extensive examination of Ussher’s doctrine of the covenant of works specifically. Woolsey and Clark relied heavily or exclusively on A Body of Divinitie, but the scholarly dispute about whether or to what extent this work reflects its purported author’s theology means that these findings must be supplemented from Ussher’s other works, even though the book was a continual bestseller in England, going through seven editions between 1645 and 1677, and was an important source for early modern covenant theology regardless.88 Woolsey’s study was limited to ways that Ussher’s use of covenant connected to that of the Westminster Assembly. On the other hand, Clark accurately explained the Body’s covenant theology and correctly argued that Ussher stood in continuity with the Reformed tradition regarding covenant theology’s development. In contrast to Clark, who noted differences between 82 Jamie Blake Knox, “High Church History: C. R. Elrington and His Edition of James Ussher’s Works,” in Church of Ireland and Its Past,  74–​94. 83 Ford, Ussher, 6; John Dowden, “Archbishop Ussher,” in J. H. Bernard (ed.), Peplographia Dublinensis (London: Macmillan, 1902), 3–​29; E. W. Watson, “James Ussher,” in W. E. Collins (ed.), Typical English Churchmen (London: SPCK, 1902); J. A. Carr, The Life and Times of Archbishop James Ussher (London: Wells Gardner, Darton and Co., 1895); James Macaulay, “Archbishop Ussher,” in Short Biographies for the People, vol. VII, no. 78 (London, 1891); M. F. Day, Archbishop Ussher, His Life and Character (Dublin: Hodges & Smith, 1861). 84 Knox, Ussher, 113–​89. 85 Ford, Ussher, 223–​56. 86 Parr, Life. 87 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 35–​79; Clark, “Christ and Covenant,” 425–​26. 88 Green, Print and Protestantism, [666].

20  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works the views of Ussher and other theologians, Woolsey conflated Ussher’s covenant theology with John Ball’s, which was especially notable regarding the covenant of works.89 Woolsey’s study needs to be updated and nuanced and Clark’s needs expansion, but this work fills both gaps. J. V. Fesko’s brand-​new book on the covenant of works, however, devoted an entire chapter specifically to Ussher’s view.90 Fesko’s very fine study outlined the broad contours of Ussher’s doctrine of the covenant of works and drew attention to some of the major issues, but it did not address the sources Ussher used to construct his doctrine, which is an important aspect of establishing the precise ways that the doctrine developed through conversations at the historical level, nor did it delve into the immense amount of manuscript material that is rife with discussion about the covenant of works. That is not a criticism of Fesko’s important work but an indication of why the present monograph-​length study is needed. The publications devoted to Ussher over the years have still left the need for further work on his thought. Ford and Snoddy established certain parameters for Ussher research, but neither explored his massive contribution to the important topic of covenant theology. Ford’s outline of Ussher’s historical background provides a guide to Ussher’s changing contexts, and Snoddy defined a useful starting place for examining how Ussher used the covenant of works to relate particular doctrines. The studies that considered Ussher in connection to covenant theology did so briefly and not with the purpose of understanding Ussher himself. There is still some way to go in establishing Ussher’s significant role in the early modern period and how he contributed to the Reformed and conformist causes, as well as his specific view on the Irish context.

Framing Covenant Theology Ussher was far from alone in articulating covenant theology, and it is important to situate him within the early modern use of covenant and scholarly analysis of it. By the mid-​seventeenth century, Reformed theologians were making heavy use of covenant theology, which categorized God’s relationships with humankind into formal, legal agreements and structured 89 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 45–​52,  73–​79. 90 J. V. Fesko, The Covenant of Works: Origins, Development, and Reception (OUP, forthcoming), ch. 4.

Ussher, Covenant Theology, Contexts  21 the theological system around them. Yet patristic and medieval theologians had significantly used the covenant idea since the earliest days of the church.91 Reformed developments of covenant theology, therefore, were not idiosyncratic, and covenant was an obvious theme to retrieve as the Reformation returned to the ad fontes method. Others have covered the vast amount of secondary literature on covenant theology, and another survey would be superfluous. Woolsey comprehensively described the secondary literature up to the 1980s, and studies by Scott Clark and Mark Beach have updated that survey.92 In another study, Clark, supplemented by Woolsey and Robert Letham, provided the best survey of primary sources in Reformed Orthodox covenant theology in the early modern period.93 Given these thorough studies, a brief sketch of mature Reformed covenant theology and the major lines of interpretation should suffice. The Westminster Confession of Faith, drafted in the 1640s, serves as the premier example of how Reformed theology came to use covenants to explain God’s relationships with humanity. That confession described a covenant as “some voluntary condescension on Gods part,” and as being necessary for people to have “any fruition of him as their Blessednesse and Reward.”94 This consensus statement painted covenants as relationships God established with humanity so that he could grant blessings to them.95 This initial description of covenant in the confession omitted the condition for obtaining God’s benefits because two different covenants with different conditions before and after Adam’s Fall were subsequently identified. Before the Fall, Adam was in the covenant of works, which required him to render “perfect and personall obedience” in order to attain blessings.96 After the Fall, God made the covenant of grace with humanity, “wherein he freely offereth unto sinners Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them

91 J. Ligon Duncan III, “The Covenant Idea in Ante-​Nicene Theology,” PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 1995; Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 161–​203. 92 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 80–​158; R. Scott Clark, “Casper Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant,” DPhil thesis, Oxford University, 1998, 20–​39; J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace (Göttingen: V&R, 2007),  22–​64. 93 Clark, “Christ and Covenant,” 403–​28; Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 162–​539; Robert Letham, “The Foedus Operum: Some Factors Accounting for Its Development,” SCJ 14, no. 4 (1983): 457–​67. 94 WCF, 14 [7.1]. 95 Chad B. Van Dixhoorn, “New Taxonomies of the Westminster Assembly (1643–​52):  The Creedal Controversy as Case Study,” RRR 6, no. 1 (2004): 82–​106; Chad B. Van Dixhoorn, “Unity and Disunity at the Westminster Assembly (1643–​49): A Commemorative Essay,” Journal of Presbyterian History 79, no. 2 (2001): 103–​17. 96 WCF, 14 [7.2]

22  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Faith in Him.”97 This formulation proposed that God grants the benefits of the covenant either based on personal obedience or through faith in Christ, depending on whether the grant came before or after Adam’s Fall. Another category, the covenant of redemption, was also developed, posing a covenant among the persons of the Godhead that agreed upon the roles each played in the economy of salvation.98 Covenants, therefore, holistically explained the Creator-​creature interaction. The major interpretive lines in the history of covenant theology need to be unpacked, and this study builds upon the approach that has demonstrated how the Reformed tradition developed organically over time.99 Within that tradition, distinct aspects of covenant theology developed at different times, but a broadly unified trajectory is still identifiable.100 Richard Muller pioneered a methodological turn in studies of post-​Reformation doctrine that has established that there was diversity in the Reformed tradition, but also an underlying unity.101 Prior to Muller’s work, though, early modern theological historiography tended to adopt a Hegelian thesis-​antithesis-​ synthesis approach that read differences of expression within the Reformed tradition as antithetical to each other. Muller’s thesis about coexisting continuity and diversity within the Reformed tradition is best understood in light of the scholarship he critiqued. The older approach, perhaps best exemplified by Karl Barth, argued that the more scholastic Reformed theologians deviated from the purer theology of John Calvin.102 Leonard Trinterud applied this argument to 97 WCF, 15 [7.3]. 98 J. V. Fesko, The Covenant of Redemption: Origins, Development, and Reception (Göttingen: V&R, 2016); Richard A. Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis: Locating the Origins of a Concept,” MAJT 18 (2007): 11–​65. 99 PRRD 1:27–​84; Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree:  Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008); Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Νew York: OUP, 2003); Richard A. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition:  On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012). 100 Clark, “Christ and Covenant,” 403–​28. 101 Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (New  York:  OUP, 2001); Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark (eds.), Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005); David VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought (Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 2009); Willem J.  van Asselt (ed.), Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism (Grand Rapids, MI:  RHB, 2011); J. V. Fesko, Beyond Calvin:  Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology (1517–​1700) (Göttingen: V&R, 2012); Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (eds.), Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth Century British Puritanism (Göttingen: V&R, 2011); Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 253–​552. 102 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, trans. G. W. Bromiley, 14 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Hendriksen, 2010), 4.1.1–​78.

Ussher, Covenant Theology, Contexts  23 English puritans, claiming they followed the Rhineland reformers instead of the Genevans.103 Wayne Baker followed Trinterud, arguing that Heinrich Bullinger’s covenant theology, which gave more responsibility to humanity, was opposed to the predestinarian theology in Geneva. According to Baker, the Genevan emphasis on predestination muted human responsibility and was implicitly antinomian. Supposedly, English federalism formulated the covenant of works to combine Bullinger’s stress on human responsibility with double predestinarianism.104 James Torrance named “federal theology” as the primary cause of Scottish neo-​nomianism that required works for justification, arguing that Calvin and the early Reformers did not teach and would have rejected the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.105 In response, Woolsey rightly analyzed Torrance’s arguments as “nearly a total disregard of primary source material.”106 Additionally, both Muller and Venema substantially demonstrated continuity between Bullinger and his Reformed contemporaries on the doctrine of predestination.107 This continuity disproves the notion that covenant theology developed to avoid any supposed antinomianism entailed by predestinarian theology. Rather, scholars in the Barthian trajectory overstated the discontinuity between earlier and later Reformed theology. Another form of this dichotomizing argument criticized seventeenth-​ century Protestants for reintroducing scholastic thought. Stephen Strehle, for example, blamed scholasticism for the development of the two covenants, and, in contrast to nuanced scholarship that identifies scholasticism as a method of making precise theological distinctions, he insisted that it entailed specific doctrinal content.108 In reality, Reformed, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic theologians all implemented scholastic tools and reached very different conclusions, and scholarly investigation of this point has discredited

103 Leonard J. Trinterud, “The Origins of Puritanism,” CH 20, no. 1 (March 1951): 37–​57. 104 J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant:  The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980), 214. 105 James B. Torrance, “Covenant or Contract? A Study of the Theological Background of Worship in Seventeenth Century Scotland,” SJT 23 (1970): 51–​69; cf. William VanDoodewaard, The Marrow Controversy and Seceder Tradition: Atonement, Saving Faith, and the Gospel Offer in Scotland (1718–​ 1799) (Grand Rapids, MI: RHB, 2011); Stephen G. Myers, Scottish Federalism and Covenantalism in Transition: The Theology of Ebenezer Erskine (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2015). 106 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 137, 136–​38. 107 Muller, Christ and the Decree, 39–​46; Cornelis P. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “the Other Reformed Tradition”? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 100–​116. 108 Stephen Strehle, Calvinism, Federalism, and Scholasticism: A Study of the Reformed Doctrine of the Covenant (Bern: Peter Lang, 1988), 4.

24  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Strehle’s claim.109 Specific to this study, Strehle blamed voluntarism—​the emphasis on God’s unbound choice—​for the development of Reformed covenant theology.110 The present study, in contrast, argues that Ussher understood the covenant of works in primarily intellectualist terms, meaning that he emphasized that God’s character undergirded how the covenant functioned. This varying formulation indicates that the covenant of works was actually common property to intellectualists and voluntarists. Strehle tried to discredit his subjects’ formulations, even at times arguing with them, but his approach was thoroughly unhistorical and should be set aside.111 Amanda Capern applied this dichotomizing approach to Ussher, arguing for a disparity between his constructions of predestinarian and covenantal theology. She claimed that he correlated the decree of election to the covenant of grace and the decree of reprobation to the covenant of works, and that he used the covenant of works to explain how God could hold some people responsible for sin even though he had appointed their condemnation.112 Recent scholarship, however, has proved that various trajectories existed together within the Reformed tradition without overtaking each other. These varying forms of expression, even disagreements, often remained present within the Reformed mainstream, only infrequently leading to one of them being nominated as the singularly Reformed view. Capern’s application of the Barthian trajectory does not account for legitimate variation within the Reformed tradition. Some early modern theologians emphasized aspects of covenant theology that others did not, but this variety did not constitute entirely separate traditions.113 Instead of a supposed single fountain of pure Reformed theology, there were several contemporary sources of origination for the Reformed tradition with varying emphases that are developed

109 Muller, Unaccommodated Calvin; Muller, After Calvin; Trueman and Clark (eds.), Protestant Scholasticism. 110 Strehle, Calvinism, Federalism, and Scholasticism,  1–​2. 111 Strehle, Calvinism, Federalism, and Scholasticism, 89, 317–​ 21, 388–​ 91; cf. Jared Wicks, “Justification and Faith in Luther’s Theology,” TS 44, no. 1 (March 1983): 3–​29; Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 308; Carl R. Trueman, “Is the Finnish Line a New Beginning? A Critical Assessment of the Reading of Luther Offered by the Helsinki Circle,” WTJ 65 (2003): 231–​44; Carl R. Trueman, Luther on the Christian Life:  Cross and Freedom (Wheaton, IL:  Crossway, 2015); Clark, “Casper Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant,” 20–​39; R. Scott Clark, “Iustitia imputata Christi: Alien or Proper to Luther’s Doctrine of Justification?,” CTQ 70, nos. 3–​4 (July–​October 2006): 269–​310; Timo Laato, “Justification: The Stumbling Block of the Finnish Luther School,” CTQ 72 (2008): 327–​ 46; Beach, Christ and the Covenant, 166 n. 41; Fesko, Beyond Calvin, 131–​36. 112 Capern, “Slipperye Times and Dangerous Dayes,” 60–​61. 113 Mark Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” in Drawn into Controversie, 183–​203.

Ussher, Covenant Theology, Contexts  25 along trajectories of continuity and refinement.114 Capern and others with a dichotomizing approach to covenant theology incorrectly attempted to abstract covenant from the theological system and to understand its significance independent of individual loci. This interpretative strategy is deficient because covenant theology was used to contextualize and integrate various doctrines. Several recent studies have broken the dichotomizing trend and made insightful contributions to our understanding of covenant theology. John von Rohr considered covenant theology’s close association with the ordo salutis (the logical ordering of the benefits of salvation), predestination, and aspects of the Christian life.115 He avoided dichotomizing theories, but the breadth of his project to survey the covenant of grace across the puritan era precluded any thorough analysis of how covenant structured these doctrines. Scott Clark demonstrated that Casper Olevian, a sixteenth-​century reformer, used covenant theology to address the major theological topics and to unify his thought.116 Mark Jones showed that the covenant of redemption played a large role in Thomas Goodwin’s Christological formulations.117 J. V. Fesko outlined the covenant of redemption’s role in relating the work of Christ to each of the Trinitarian persons and how various figures from the seventeenth to the twentieth century used this covenant to explain the Incarnation.118 These studies have begun to fill the gap in research, but more work is needed following their models. Although late seventeenth-​century figures have been examined, including Thomas Goodwin and John Owen, there has not yet been a focused study of an early seventeenth-​century covenant theologian.119 A study of Ussher’s covenant theology addresses this need and gives us an example of a well-​respected early seventeenth-​century scholar who was 114 Richard A. Muller, “Perkins’ a Golden Chaine: Predestinarian System of Schematized Ordo Salutis,” SCJ 9 (1978):  69–​81; Richard A. Muller, “Duplex Cognitio Dei in the Theology of Early Reformed Orthodoxy,” SCJ 10 (1979):  51–​61; Richard A. Muller, “Covenant and Conscience in English Reformed Theology:  Three Variations on a 17th Century Theme,” WTJ 42 (1980):  308–​ 34; Richard A. Muller, “Divine Covenants, Absolute and Conditional:  John Cameron and the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology,” MAJT 17 (2006):  11–​56; J. V. Fesko, Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition: Supra-​and Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort, and Westminster (Greenville, SC: Reformed Academic Press, 2001), 151–​296. 115 John von Rohr, The Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought (Atlanta:  Scholars Press, 1986), 87–​112. 116 Clark, Casper Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant. 117 Mark Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth:  The Christology of Puritan Reformed Orthodox Theologian Thomas Goodwin (1600–​1680) (Göttingen: V&R, 2010), 123–​45. 118 Fesko, The Covenant of Redemption. 119 Carl R. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2007), 67–​100; Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth; Beeke and Jones, Puritan Theology, 217–​320.

26  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works important in the shaping of the covenant of works. Ussher was the most intellectually prominent Irish Protestant of the period. He also was a political royalist, but the fact that covenant theology was shared property between the political and ecclesiastical conservatives and the more vigorously reform-​ driven shows how theologians of varying political commitments all could hold strongly to Reformed theology. Most studies of puritan-​era covenant theology have focused on the radicals, but it is time to highlight those who were committed to Reformed conformity.

Framing the Irish Reformation Ussher lived during a turbulent time for the Protestant movement in Ireland, and it is important to situate him within this cultural context. This section explores some of the literature on the Irish Reformation and provides a cultural background for discussing the contexts in which Ussher developed his covenant theology. Scholars have devoted significant attention to how the Reformation developed in Ireland during the sixteenth century but have left the early Stuart period largely unexplored. Felicity Heal’s valuable work covered the period before 1603 and considered Ireland primarily in reference to the English Reformation.120 No matter how linked it was to English political factors, the Irish Reformation was not simply an extension of external movements for reform.121 The scholarly struggle to assess the Irish Reformation relates to its basic failure, which certainly does connect to Irish-​ English relations. As Ian Hazlett wrote, “The incongruity of the Irish situation was that although the Reformation is conventionally perceived in terms of failure, an aborted event or a non-​event, or a surviving runt kept alive by a life-​support machine sponsored by the British ‘state,’ it has nonetheless made a practically irreversible, if debatable impact on the country.”122 Scholarly discussion has primarily focused on this failure. Older literature on the Irish Reformation debated mainly the timing and cause of its failure. Brendan Bradshaw argued that failure was inevitable by the mid-​sixteenth century because English colonialism hardened 120 Felicity Heal, Reformation in Britain and Ireland (New York: OUP, 2003). 121 Brendan Bradshaw, “Sword, Word and Strategy in the Reformation in Ireland,” HJ 21, no. 3 (September 1978): 500. 122 W. Ian P. Hazlett, The Reformation in Britain and Ireland:  An Introduction (Trowbridge, UK: T&T Clark International, 2003), 85.

Ussher, Covenant Theology, Contexts  27 nominal Catholicism and the Marian reign galvanized it.123 Nicholas Canny responded that failure was not certain even until the nineteenth century.124 Samantha Meigs suggested failure was always unavoidable, with the Irish Reformation collapsing because it never overrode the ancient indigenous cultural systems embedded within Irish society.125 Later literature explored how the political, cultural, and religious divides between Gaelic Irish, Old English, and New English factored into the failure of reform.126 In any case, English state-​sponsored reform failed “to take root in any section of the indigenous population.”127 There was a crippling conflict of coercion and conformity with persuasion and conversion.128 These considerations highlight the background of political and religious tension leading into the years when Ussher worked to develop Reformed theology in Ireland. The literature that has examined the Irish Reformation as it developed into the seventeenth century directly connects to Ussher, as he was the leading theologian in Ireland in the period between his ordination in 1602 and the Irish Rebellion in 1641.129 Alan Ford wrote what remains the definitive work on the Irish Reformation in the seventeenth century, arguing that the mix of English colonialism and intellectual “Calvinism” prevented Reformation roots from growing deep in Irish culture.130 The Irish Articles (1615) solidified this Reformed dynamic, but much of the population resisted this attempt to make Reformed theology the official teaching of the Church of Ireland.131 Ussher worked to further that confessional identity with a 123 Brendan Bradshaw, The Dissolution of the Religious Orders in Ireland Under Henry VIII (New York: CUP, 1974; repr. New York: CUP, 2008); cf. O’Hannrachain, Catholic Reformation in Ireland,  10–​11. 124 Nicholas Canny, “Why the Reformation Failed in Ireland: Une Question Mal Posée,” JEH 30, no. 4 (October 1979): 423–​50; cf. Brendan Bradshaw, “The English Reformation and Identity Formation in Wales and Ireland,” in British Consciousness and Identity, 43–​111; Karl S. Bottigheimer, “The Failure of the Reformation in Ireland: Une Question Bien Posée,” JEH 36, no. 2 (April 1985): 196–​207. 125 Meigs, Reformations in Ireland,  41–​75. 126 Karl S. Bottigheimer and Ute Lotz-​Heumann, “The Irish Reformation in European Perspective,” AFR 89 (1998): 268–​309; Karl S. Bottigheimer, “Revisionism and the Irish Reformation,” JEH 51, no. 3 (July 2000): 581–​86; Brendan Bradshaw, “Revisionism and the Irish Reformation: A Rejoinder,” JEH 51, no. 3 (July 2000): 587–​91; O’Hannrachain, Catholic Reformation in Ireland,  9–​11. 127 Bradshaw, “Sword, Word and Strategy,” 475–​77. 128 Henry Jeffries, The Irish Church and the Tudor Reformations (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2010), 71–​284. 129 Alan Ford, “The Church of Ireland: A Critical Bibliography, 1536–​1992: Part II: 1603–​41,” IΗS 28, no. 112 (1993): 356. 130 Alan Ford, The Protestant Reformation in Ireland 1590–​1641 (Dublin:  Four Courts Press, 1997),  14–​18. 131 Ute Lotz-​Heumann, “Confessionalisation in Ireland: Periodisation and Character,” in Alan Ford and John McCafferty (eds.), The Origins of Sectarianism in Early Modern Ireland (Cambridge: CUP, 2005),  49–​52.

28  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works historical narrative of pure doctrine, arguing that the Irish church had been free of popery and independent of English interference.132 He continually attempted to convince the crown of its responsibility to uphold godly religion by suppressing Catholicism in Ireland.133 Ussher incessantly pressed for Reformed theology in Ireland until his exile in 1641, and then pressed for it in England until his death. This point is made not to exclude Ussher’s efforts in England prior to his permanent relocation there but merely to highlight that the focus of his labors was on promoting Reformed theology in whatever situation he found himself. This study examines how he developed one aspect of Reformed theology in connection with his vast understanding of the Christian past in order to frame a coherent and integrated doctrinal system to further the Protestant cause within the ongoing efforts at Irish reform. Although this work emphasizes ideas more than policy, Ussher’s theological writings cannot be legitimately understood if they are disconnected from the goals that he hoped to accomplish through them. Although these discussions about the Irish Reformation fall largely outside the scope of this study, they do help to situate Ussher within his context. The transnational traffic of Reformed ideas is often more pertinent to Ussher’s covenant theology, but there are times when the Irish context made the predominant mark on his theological expression. Chapter 2 discusses how he pointedly formulated the covenant of works against the Roman Catholic notion of the superadded gift. Chapter 4 highlights how Ussher exploited his locality in Ireland to defend predestination during the Laudian regime in a way that English theologians could not have managed. Further, Ussher adjusted his rhetoric with the shifting political climate. His tactics to reshape the people’s internal beliefs by first directing their external practices through state-​sponsored reform proved inadequate, but the Catholic Reformation turned out to be decisive, especially in light of the 1641 rebellion that began with massacres of Protestants and continued with the establishment of a Catholic government over most of the island.134 This turbulence had lasting 132 Alan Ford, “Shaping History,” 25–​27; Ford, “Ussher and the Creation of an Irish Protestant Identity,” 196–​212; Ford, “Dependent or Independent?,” 168–​81; Alan Ford, “Apocalyptic Ireland, 1580–​1641,” ITQ 78, no. 2 (2013): 138–​42. 133 Alan Ford, “James Ussher and the Godly Prince in Early Seventeenth-​Century Ireland,” in Hiram Morgan (ed.), Political Ideology in Ireland, 1541–​1641 (Dublin:  Four Courts Press, 1999), 206–​28. 134 Alan Ford, “‘Force and Fear of Punishment’: Protestants and Religious Coercion in Ireland, 1603–​ 33,” in Elizabethanne Boran and Crawford Gribben (eds.), Enforcing the Reformation in Ireland and Scotland, 1550–​1700 (Aldershot, UK:  Ashgate, 2006), 91–​130; O’Hannrachain, Catholic Reformation in Ireland, 3–​11; Tadgh O’Hannrachain, “‘In Imitation of That Holy Patron of Prelates the Blessed St Charles’: Episcopal Activity in Ireland and the Formation of a Confessional

Ussher, Covenant Theology, Contexts  29 effects on Ussher’s life, as the rebellion prevented his return to Ireland from England and ensured that he died in exile. Ussher cast a long shadow on English puritanism, but that was perhaps a by-​product of his formation and failures as an Irish puritan.

Considerations Concerning Ussher Sources Ussher left a massive array of sources, and it is necessary to discuss this study’s scope and its preferred editions of Ussher’s works. Elrington’s nineteenth-​ century edition remains the most available version of most of Ussher’s works, but Jamie Knox demonstrated that Elrington’s edition significantly misrepresented Ussher.135 Previous research reached mistaken conclusions about Ussher, instances of which are noted throughout this book, because scholars relied on Elrington’s edition, which at times even added phrases to Ussher’s material to dilute some of the views of which Elrington disapproved. This study, therefore, primarily cites seventeenth-​century editions, but several considerations are still in order. Ussher’s historical works tend not to give us direct access to his own theological formulations, although they do reveal which doctrines he thought were worth defending. These works are considered in this study, but they do not feature as prominently as Ussher’s theological works and sermons. There are multiple editions of those sermons and theological works, and many of the most important ones remain only in manuscript, so they require further discussion. The first issue is to establish the date of a series of sermons Ussher preached on soteriology that was published as Eighteen Choice Sermons Preached in Oxford. The 1660 edition’s title page dated them to 1640, but the 1662 edition noted that they had been preached “in the time of the Wars, before his late Majesty of Blessed Memory.”136 Both editions, however, preface the sermons with the comment that they were delivered after the Irish Rebellion, which erupted late in 1641, so immediately making the 1640 date unlikely.137 Identity, 1618–​1653,” in Origins of Sectarianism in Early Modern Ireland, 73–​94; Connolly, Divided Kingdom,  44–​50. 135 Knox, “High Church History,” 74–​94. 136 James Ussher, Eighteen Choice Sermons Preached in Oxford in the Time of the Wars, Before His Late Majesty of Blessed Memory (1662), sig. *1r; James Ussher, Eighteen Sermons Preached in Oxford 1640 (1660), sig. *1r. 137 Ussher, Choice Sermons, sig. *5r; Ussher, Sermons 1640, *5r; Connolly, Divided Kingdom, 51.

30  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Charles I was present for at least some of Ussher’s preaching at Christchurch, Oxford, in 1643, since there is record that Ussher served him communion, which immediately lends credence to the later date for this sermon series because Charles was in London in 1640. The description of the circumstances, therefore, matches what is known to be true of Ussher’s time in Oxford in 1643–​44, but it is incongruent with any time Ussher spent in Oxford in 1640.138 Further, an auditor recorded Ussher preaching in Covent Garden in London at least as early as February 14, 1641.139 This first notated sermon from Covenant Garden addressed theology proper, but the auditor preluded these notes with summaries from Ussher’s Body of Divinitie about the nature of religion, the doctrine of Scripture, and other aspects of theology proper, which suggests that the transcriber missed previous sermons on these doctrinal points. If Ussher preached roughly the same number of sermons on these unnotated topics as he did when he preached about them again starting on December 22, 1650, then he was preaching in Covent Garden well into 1640, which again makes a 1640 series in Oxford unlikely.140 Some passing evidence records that Ussher spent many hours in the library in Oxford during 1640, but it is still unlikely that he preached this sermon series then. First, the trip to Oxford likely was not long enough for him to have preached this series as regular Lord’s Day sermons. Ussher arrived in England in May 1640 and preached weekly in Cheam at least into June.141 He remained in London until late July but took one trip to Cambridge, preaching at Sidney Sussex College on July 8.142 Records then recount that Ussher was in Oxford from August 3 until October 7, but none of them mention that Ussher was preaching during that time.143 One letter dated October 7 mentioned plans for Ussher to return to London by November 9, but even that timeline does not allow eighteen weeks for Ussher to preach the series, and Ussher was trying to procure lodgings in London before the end 138 Charles McNeil (ed.), The Tanner Letters (Dublin: Stationery Office, 1943), 172. 139 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 4r (sermon on Job 11:7–​8 dated February 14, 1640 [1641]). 140 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 190r (sermon on 2 Tim. 3:16 dated December 22, 1650). 141 McNeil, The Tanner Letters, 142; Edward Berwick (ed.), The Rawdon Papers (London: John Nichols and Son, 1819), 78–​79. 142 Ford, Ussher, 227; Correspondence of James Ussher, 3:822 (letter from Ussher to John Bramhall dated July 29, 1640). 143 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Charles I: 1640 (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 1880; repr. Nendeln:  Kraus Reprint, 1967), 550; Constantine Adams to Samuel Hartlib, dated August 5, 1640, The Hartlib Papers: A Complete Text and Image Database of the Papers of Samuel Hartlib, 2nd ed. (Sheffield, UK:  Humanities Research Institute), 15/​8/​3A–​4B; J. A.  F. Bekkers (ed.), The Correspondence of John Morris with Johannes de Laet (1634–​1649) (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1970), 43 (letter dated October 7, 1640).

Ussher, Covenant Theology, Contexts  31 of October.144 Second, the 1662 edition purports that Ussher preached these sermons before the king, which should not be at odds with Stanley Gower’s prefatory remarks that Ussher preached ad populum if he delivered them, as argued here, in Christchurch, Oxford.145 Although it is possible that the 1662 edition’s publishers were attempting to tie Ussher more deeply to the royalist cause after the Restoration by linking these sermons to Charles, there is evidence that Ussher preached to Charles in Christchurch during his unquestioned lengthy stay in Oxford in 1643–​44.146 So even if, hypothetically, Ussher was in Oxford long enough to preach this series in 1640, the 1662 edition’s claims that it occurred during the civil war should outweigh that consideration because there are certain records that he preached in Oxford during his 1643–​44 stay and that he preached before Charles. Again, both the 1660 and 1662 editions state outright that Ussher delivered the sermons after the Irish Rebellion of 1641, even though this claim collides with the title page in the 1660 printing.147 Third, the content of Choice Sermons seems to favor the political context of the 1643–​44 period, which has theological relevance to Chapter 6’s argument about Ussher’s preaching concerning the nature of repentance and how he likely aimed his points at Charles’ intransigence toward negotiations with Parliament. Considerations about the compilers of Choice Sermons also confirm the post-​1640 date. Thomas Lye (1621–​1684), Joseph Crabb (c. 1619–​c. 1699), and William Ball (c. 1631–​ 1690) published the sermons from careful transcriptions. Lye was a nonconformist minister who graduated with a BA from Wadham College, Oxford, in 1641.148 Crabb, who switched from nonconformity to conformity and became the vicar of Axminster, Devonshire, in 1661, also graduated from Wadham with a BA in 1641.149 Ball, who had written several significant works by the early 1640s, was an astronomer at Wadham, not a clergyman.150 Biographical details of all three individuals place them in Oxford in the mid-​1640s: Lye did not move to Cambridge until 144 Correspondence of James Ussher, 3:825–​26 (letter to Ussher at Christchurch, Oxford, from William Laud, dated October 23, 1640). 145 Ussher, Eighteen Choice Sermons, sig. b[1]‌v. 146 McNeil, The Tanner Letters, 172. 147 Ussher, Choice Sermons, sig. *5r; Ussher, Sermons 1640, *5r; Connolly, Divided Kingdom, 51. 148 Bertha Porter and Stephen Wright, “Thomas Lye [Leigh] (1621–​1684),” ODNB. 149 Edmund Calamy, A Continuation of the Account of Ministers . . . Ejected and Silenced, 2 vols. (1727), 1:451–​52; Alumni Oxonienses 1500–​1714 (Oxford: OUP, 1891), 338–​65 (accessed March 31, 2018 at http://​www.british-​history.ac.uk/​alumni-​oxon/​1500-​1714/​pp338-​365). 150 Joseph Gross, “William Ball (c. 1631–​1690),” ODNB; William Ball, Arbitrary-​Power Lately Exercised (1642); William Ball, A Caveat for Subjects Moderating the Observator (1642); William Ball, Constitutio liberi populi (1646).

32  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works 1646, Ball’s father was knighted in Oxford by Charles I in 1643, and Crabb remained in Oxford, save a short absence from April 17 to July 7, 1643, until his ordination as a London presbyter in 1647.151 Historical factors, therefore, all indicate Ussher delivered the Choice Sermons to Charles when he was in Oxford in the midst of the civil war. Although the difference between the 1660 and 1662 editions of these sermons is minimal, this book cites the 1662 edition to underscore the importance of their proper dating.152 Ussher’s sermons are crucial for recovering his theology because he preached through the doctrinal system, leaving us his views on the full range of theological topics.153 Sources such as Choice Sermons and notes on other sermons only available in manuscript should not trouble modern scholars simply because someone else recorded Ussher’s words. Early modern universities required students to notate and repeat lecture material accurately, which demanded precision in transcription.154 Further, Arnold Hunt argued that, whereas preachers almost always modified published sermons from the original delivery, auditors’ notes preserved their elements “in a raw, unaltered state.”155 In addition to the Choice Sermons just discussed, there are several sermon collections only in manuscript, and these sermons often intersect with his catechetical works. As professor at Trinity College, Dublin, Ussher was a catechist and produced catechisms throughout his life. He wrote two catechisms when he was in his twenties, and one copy in his hand still exists.156 In 1645, these catechisms were published under his name, but without his permission.157 Ussher revised and published these catechisms

151 Porter and Wright, “Thomas Lye”; Gross, “William Ball”; Alumni Oxonienses, 338–​65 (accessed on March 31, 2018 at http://​www.british-​history.ac.uk/​alumni-​oxon/​1500-​1714/​pp338-​ 365); “Crabb, Joseph,” Clergy of the Church of England Database (accessed June 8, 2018 at http://​ db.theclergydatabase.org.uk/​jsp/​persons/​DisplayPerson.jsp?PersonID=21832); Robert Barlow Gardiner, The Registers of Wadham College, Oxford (Part I) from 1613–​1719 (1889), 137. 152 Oddly, the pagination in this edition jumps from 156 to 353 and continues consecutively from there until page 454, where it restarts at 361 and thenceforth paginates consecutively until the end of the volume. Citations here will cite according to what is marked on the pages, but the indication of the sermon text in parentheses should clarify any confusion over numbering. 153 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 41v. 154 Mordechai Feingold, “The Humanities,” in Nicholas Tyacke (ed.), The History of Oxford University, Volume IV: Seventeenth-​Century Oxford (Oxford: OUP, 1997), 293; William T. Costello, The Scholastic Curriculum at Early Seventeenth-​Century Cambridge (Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press, 1958), 11–​14. 155 Arnold Hunt, The Art of Hearing:  English Preachers and Their Audiences, 1590–​ 1640 (Cambridge: CUP, 2010), 12. 156 TCD MS 291, fol. 13r–​26v. 157 James Ussher, The Principles of Christian Religion: Summarily Set Downe According to the Word of God (1645).

Ussher, Covenant Theology, Contexts  33 in 1653, stating that they now suitably represented his views.158 Since the 1645 edition matches the manuscript copy, the 1653 edition reveals how his views developed and leaves us his mature, although brief, statement on all the major heads of theology. Ussher delivered some important theological lectures in Oxford, notes of which remain at Queen’s College, Oxford, revealing what he thought was most important for ministry students to know even during the turbulence of the civil war.159 Notably, he emphasized the role of the covenant of works. Ford did not consult this document for his biography and Snoddy never referred to the theological section, mentioning only Ussher’s recommended books.160 The accuracy of these notes should be trusted as much as the sermon manuscripts.161 Significantly, internal evidence suggests that Thomas Barlow (1608/​9–​1691), later bishop of Lincoln, transcribed the notes in 1643–​44. Barlow bequeathed the manuscript, which includes letters to him, to Queen’s College when he died. All the extant correspondence between Ussher and Barlow dates after the proposed composition of these notes.162 Barlow may have met Ussher around the time that Ussher delivered these lectures, and the men obviously maintained contact thereafter. Most of the handwriting in the notes looks strikingly similar to other samples of Barlow’s mature hand.163 These notes must have originated later than 1640 and earlier than 1645. They mention that Ussher had not read John Davenant’s Colossians commentary, which was first published in 1627. Ussher left England in 1626, well before the 1627 release of Davenant’s book, and therefore could not have told students in Oxford that he had not read it until after he returned from Ireland in 1640.164 The notes also recorded Ussher saying, “Hildersham, reade him & hee will make you a preacher indeed.”165 This remark referred to Arthur Hildersham (1563–​1632), who did publish a few works in the 1610s, but it can be reasonably assumed that the intended reference was to his better-​ known Lectures upon the Fourth of John (1629). This book, first published 158 James Ussher, The Principles of Christian Religion with a Brief Method the Doctrine Thereof (1653), sig. A2v. 159 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 31r–​42v. 160 Snoddy, Soteriology, 31, 141. 161 Feingold, “The Humanities,” 293; Costello, Scholastic Curriculum, 11–​ 14; Hunt, Art of Hearing, 12. 162 Correspondence of James Ussher, 3:911–​12, 1104–​5, 1112–​4. 163 See Barlow’s marginal note in Peter Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicanus (1668); Bodl. shelfmark NN.Theol.118, p. 95. Thanks to Richard Serjeantson, who alerted me to this sample. 164 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 42v; John Davenant, Expositio epistolae D.  Pauli ad Colossenses (Cambridge, 1627). 165 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 42r.

34  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works in 1629, was Hildersham’s earliest work in Ussher’s personal library when it was returned to Trinity College Dublin.166 This reference would more certainly date these manuscript notes to the 1640s, again since Ussher was not in England between 1626 and 1640. Since Ussher left for Wales early in 1645, these notes likely date to 1643–​44, which means they give crucial insight into Ussher’s teaching during the tense period of the civil war.167 Barlow later became one of the leading Reformed conformists, and his notes further link Ussher to that camp, perhaps even illustrating how Ussher influenced its following generations.168 One previously uncited manuscript source deserves introduction because it is apparently an early draft of the Irish Articles (1615) in Latin in Ussher’s handwriting, which confirms Ussher’s preeminent role in composing that confession.169 Ford once denied Ussher’s exclusive authorship of the Articles but later extensively discussed his relationship to the document, detailing how the Articles draw significantly from Ussher’s other works.170 This new manuscript evidence, however, significantly strengthens the case that Ussher was the leading figure behind the Articles. Ussher’s grandson, James Tyrrell, claimed that the convocation ordered Ussher “to draw up those articles, and put them into Latin,” which has been yet unsubstantiated, but the claim is confirmed by this manuscript.171 It could be objected that Ussher played merely a secretarial role in composing the Articles in Latin, but that does not adequately explain the overlap of material between the Irish Articles, Ussher’s other works, and this document. First, there are nineteen instances where the Irish Articles, published in 1615, included verbatim material from Ussher’s Principles of Christian Religion, not published in any form until 1645, which already lends credence to Ussher’s heavy involvement in the Articles composition.172 Second, there are twenty-​two instances where the Irish Articles match material in this Latin manuscript in Ussher’s hand, which seems to indicate that this draft was a significant base for the English text of the confession. Third, there are forty-​three examples where this Latin document translates Ussher’s Principles of Religion, and it is not sufficient to 166 TCD MS 6, fol. 82r. 167 These notes’ date is argued extensively in Harrison Perkins, “Manuscript and Material Evidence for James Ussher’s Body of Divinitie (1645),” EQ 89, no. 2 (2018): 143–​44. 168 Hampton, Anti-​Arminians, 10. 169 TCD MS 287, fol. 102r–​105r. 170 Alan Ford, The Protestant Reformation in Ireland, 1590–​1641, 2nd ed. (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1997), 156–​64; Ford, Ussher, 85–​103. 171 UW 1: App. P, clxxx. 172 Ussher, Principles (1645); Ussher, Principles (1653).

Ussher, Covenant Theology, Contexts  35 think this text is simply a translation of English material that Ussher compiled for that catechetical work because there is other material in the manuscript that is not directly from the catechisms, and the manuscript is outlined without questions in a blocked-​out format that looks very similar to how confessions were normally printed. Further, there are some instances where the Latin text matches the final version of the Irish Articles better than the catechisms match the Articles. The cumulative evidence points rather decisively toward this document as an early draft of the Irish Articles that Ussher himself composed. That conclusion does not preclude others’ involvement in refining them for the final version, but it does indicate Ussher’s foundational role in their composition.173 This manuscript’s value for this study is twofold in that it provides brand-​new material to consider as a source in itself regarding Ussher’s theology, but it also bolsters appeals to the Irish Articles themselves as a direct reflection of Ussher’s own views. Ussher’s Body of Divinitie is by far the most complex source used in this study because its authorship is debated and that debate has not been easily settled. Yet the Body was an influential work among seventeenth-​century theologians and should not be lightly dismissed. Some historians have even claimed that it influenced the Westminster Assembly, particularly on covenant theology, more than any other book.174 Although that point may be disputed, there is substantial primary source evidence that the Westminster divines used material from Ussher’s Body to compose their Larger Catechism.175 This study does not examine whether the Body was actually that significant, but its viability as a source for Ussher’s thought is certainly relevant. Ussher’s regular use of its content in his other works has already been thoroughly demonstrated, indicating that it legitimately represents his theology.176 Although Ussher did compose the Body, he did not intend to publish it.177 John Downame published it in Ussher’s name in 1645, and

173 I have nearly completed a critical edition of this manuscript with transcription, translation, and an introduction that details and defends at length this document’s relationship to the Irish Articles. 174 MPWA 1:141–​42 (citing Bodl. Rawl. D.  843 fols. 85r, 86r); Muller, “Inspired by God,” 39; Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 39–​79; Crawford Gribben, Irish Puritans, 87; A. A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology: A Course of Popular Lectures (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976 [first published 1890]), 165; John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), 4:221; Crawford Gribben, “A New Introduction,” in James Ussher, A Body of Divinity:  Being the Sum and Substance of the Christian Religion (Birmingham:  SGCB, 2007), xi; Clark, “Christ and Covenant,” 426. 175 Perkins, “The Westminster Assembly’s Probable Appropriation of James Ussher,” 57–​63. 176 Perkins, “Manuscript and Material Evidence,” 133–​61. 177 Bernard, Life, 41.

36  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Ussher distanced himself from it at first.178 Later, however, he warmed to its publication and even expressed this by gifting a signed copy to his cousin Ann Meredyth on May 1, 1647.179 The swirling political turmoil may be the reason Ussher was initially reluctant to be linked with a book cherished among the puritans, but its acceptance and usefulness may have later eased his nerves about its publication, especially during the Interregnum. The Body should not be uncritically accepted as Ussher’s own work, but neither should it be dismissed out of hand. Many scholars decided their view on it before exploring their theses, which de facto excludes its contents from their conclusions. Elrington refused to acknowledge it as Ussher’s because its Reformed doctrine did not square with his high church depiction of Ussher.180 Woolsey likely accepted it too uncritically, although he usually incorporated other evidence as well.181 Jonathan Moore rejected Ussher’s authorship without argument.182 Ford, although skeptical about Ussher’s authorship of the work, pointed out that it presents what Ussher was “teaching his parishioners in early seventeenth-​century Dublin.”183 Snoddy opted for cautious use and made no arguments that rested on it alone.184 In an earlier essay I extensively defended the Body as a viable source for Ussher scholarship.185 In light of that prior research, the present study cites the Body as a legitimate representation of Ussher’s theology but uses it only to support points taken from other sources. Citation of the Body in conjunction with Ussher’s other works forms a subargument that it does fairly represent Ussher’s theology (save his changed view on the extent of Christ’s satisfaction). This subargument clears the ground for future studies of Ussher to make significant use of the Body. Parts of the Body necessarily remain unexamined in this work because this study draws only on portions related to Ussher’s doctrine of covenant. 178 Correspondence of James Ussher, 3:880. 179 Bernard, Life, 41–​42; Ussher, A Body of Divinity (1677), sig. A3r; Ford, Ussher, 82 n.  125; Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 39–​42. The signed copy is at Dr. Williams’ Library in London: James Ussher, A Body of Divinitie, or The Summe and Substance of Christian Religion (1647), A2r; shelf mark: 1014.Q.17. Thanks to Jane Giscombe for her help locating this volume and citation directions. Ussher’s family genealogy is reprinted from his manuscript in UW 1:iii–​xiii. TCD MS 782 contained the manuscript version. 180 UW 1:248–​50. 181 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 39–​79; Fesko, The Westminster Standards, 125–​68 also made uncritical use of A Body of Divinitie, although it must be granted that his intent was to explore background sources of the Westminster Assembly, not to explain Ussher’s theology. 182 Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 178–​79 n. 31. 183 Ford, Ussher, 82; cf. Ford, “Making Dead Men Speak,” 51. 184 Snoddy, Soteriology, 36. 185 The arguments here are condensed from Perkins, “Manuscript and Material Evidence,” 133–​61.

Ussher, Covenant Theology, Contexts  37

Conclusion This chapter outlined the major scholarly coordinates surrounding this book by defining the argument and describing the important lines of secondary literature. This work argues that Ussher tied major doctrinal themes together by using the covenant of works. Several themes from the catholic tradition undergird his formulation of this covenant: intellectualism, the law’s foundational role, and Adam’s federal representation. Further, Ussher exemplified the Reformed conformist tradition and shows that the Reformed tradition was not bound to specific ecclesiastical and political outlooks. The literature on Ussher has not yet made these arguments. Older Ussher scholarship often ignored what Ussher’s positions meant for his time. There is a small, growing body of research into his historical setting, political activities, and scholarly habits. Very little attention has been given to Ussher as a theologian, and because of this lack, there are no established, much less competing, positions regarding the big picture of Ussher’s theology. Covenant theology, on the other hand, has a long history of interpretation, but in the last few decades Richard Muller has revolutionized post-​Reformation historiography by demonstrating both unity and diversity within the Reformed tradition. The Muller approach opposes older theses that tended to set various lines of the Reformed tradition against each other, and this study adopts the Muller approach to investigate how covenant functions as a structuring idea for the rest of Ussher’s theological particulars.186 The Irish Reformation in the mid-​seventeenth century has also received little attention. Alan Ford established a clear picture of how the Irish Reformation was a peculiar event that worked very differently than did the Continental and English Reformations. Whereas those events happened largely as vernacular movements, the use of English in the Irish Reformation marginalized the Gaelic-​speaking population. The Irish Reformation was predominantly an elitist movement without roots among the native people. Ussher was the leading figure of Irish Protestantism, but he failed to establish a thriving and independent Protestant church in Ireland.187 This study contributes an examination of Irish Protestant theology, at least in its Ussherian expression, and provides a glimpse of early modern theology in Ireland, which in other works has been either neglected or smoothed into the English church. It also

186

PRRD 1:15–​9.

187 Connolly, Divided Kingdom,  8–​24.

38  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works adds to the history of covenant theology by implementing an approach that explores not only the surface of Ussher’s covenant theology but also its structuring role for many other aspects of his theology. Lastly, it examines Ussher as a theologian and offers a big-​picture view of his thought, which ought to help establish a trajectory for further Ussher studies. A final word is needed about method. This study’s relationship to the historical discipline is an obvious question, given its focus on theology, and the legitimacy of theologically focused historical study might be questioned. Intellectual history is an established discipline, but the close connection between religion and all other aspects of seventeenth-​century life vindicates theologically focused intellectual history, perhaps especially in the Irish context.188 Any study of ideas in the seventeenth century must attend to theological factors to some degree.189 In the case of Ussher’s covenant theology, the shifts in the Irish situation, with oscillating tensions between Protestants and Roman Catholics, created a unique context in the development of Protestant confessionalization, a context distinct from any other context of confessionalization found on the Continent or in England. One of the most prominent factors in view here is the relationship between the magistrates and confessionalization, which, in the case of Ireland, is evidently different because of the issue of English overrule. Irish theology of that time gives a glimpse into seventeenth-​century thought against a cultural background different from what is found in other studies of theological ideas. The focus throughout this study remains on ideas rather than policies of reform, but there are instances throughout where political backgrounds or intentions become important considerations for understanding aspects of Ussher’s theological rhetoric. The historical approach to theological ideas is also justified because attempts to examine the ideas of past theologians within the discipline of theology often treat the ideas in question abstractly.190 Historical ideas, however, 188 Skinner, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” 57–​59; John Coffey and Alister Chapman, “Introduction: Intellectual History and the Return of Religion,” in Alister Chapman, John Coffey, and Brad S. Gregory (eds.), Seeing Things Their Way: Intellectual History and the Return of Religion (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009), 1–​23; Skinner, “Interpretation, Rationality and Truth,” 27–​56; Felix Gilbert, “Intellectual History: Its Aims and Methods,” Daedalus 100, no. 1 (Winter 1971): 80–​97. 189 Brad S. Gregory, “Can We ‘See Things Their Way’? Should We Try?” in Seeing Things Their Way,  24–​45. 190 Muller recognized this as “the validity of the critique of the decontextualized reading of documents often raised by social historians in their encounter with the admittedly flawed results of an older intellectual history. Given the highly traditionary nature of theology and the observance of confessional boundaries by the older orthodoxy, the immediate social or political context of a theological statement is typically unclear and, in many cases ultimately irretrievable.” PRRD 1:16.

Ussher, Covenant Theology, Contexts  39 must be studied in relation to other contemporary ideas.191 Theologians tend to read texts as if books themselves, without any historical apparatus, constitute the history of ideas.192 Direct application to current dogmatic concerns usually becomes the primary purpose.193 Muller has issued the challenge to reread historical documents apart from modern dogmatic concerns or grids, with the goal of establishing, as much as possible, the historical context and apparatus that frame important ideas of the past.194 This study situates Ussher’s covenant theology not only within the intellectual context of how ideas are transmitted with specific philosophical/​ideological apparatuses but also within the development of his own work. The complexity of Ussher sources makes attention to editions and dates significant to understanding them. Books are attached to their particular historical contexts, including consideration of publication dates, publishers themselves, authorial approval for publication, and changes between editions, as well as the author’s other work.195 Early modern books were material means of transmitting ideas, but people could access those ideas only if they had the physical book.196 The ideas articulated in books did not become timeless ideas once they were published, and the historical reception of books must be traced through documented instances where it can be proved that people accessed a specific book.197 Neglecting these considerations produces “historical” studies that simply summarize past works and do not take account of that work’s historical significance. Online databases such as EEBO and PRDL have made simple summaries of past works irrelevant and obsolete. Real contributions to historical scholarship must do more, prioritizing manuscript sources for new data and focusing on wider contextual apparatuses. Works must be

191 Quentin Skinner, “Introduction: Seeing Things Their Way,” in Regarding Method,  3–​5. 192 Richard A.  Muller, “Reflections on Persistent Whiggism and Its Antidotes in the Study of Sixteenth-​and Seventeenth-​Century Intellectual History,” in Seeing Things Their Way, 136–​37; Carl R. Trueman, “Calvin and Calvinism,” in Donald McKim (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin (Cambridge: CUP, 2004), 227. 193 Muller, Unaccommodated Calvin, 3–​17; Muller, “Reflections on Persistent Whiggism and Its Antidotes,” 135–​42. 194 Muller, Unaccommodated Calvin, 3–​17; Skinner, “Interpretation, Rationality and Truth,” 27–​56. 195 Leslie Howsam, “Introduction,” in Leslie Howsam (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the History of the Book (Cambridge, CUP, 2015), 1–​2; Cyndia Susan Clegg, “The Authority and Subversiveness of Print in Early-​Modern Europe,” in Cambridge Companion to the History of the Book, 125–​42; Robert Darnton, “What Is the History of Books?,” in David Finkelstein and Alistair McCleery (eds.), The Book History Reader (London: Routledge, 2002), 18–​19. 196 Peter Stoicheff, “Materials and Meanings,” in Cambridge Companion to the History of the Book,  73–​89. 197 See Harrison Perkins, “Reconsidering the Development of the Covenant of Works: A Study in Doctrinal Trajectory,” CTJ 53, no. 2 (November 2018): 289–​94.

40  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works considered in light of their “causes” and “effects” as much as possible. This study avoids the error of dehistoricization by paying attention to the historical contexts of various works and to specific contributions that those works made to Ussher’s career.198 This chapter has outlined the arguments of the book and surveyed the major issues involved in understanding Ussher’s covenant theology. The historical approach to the sources will indicate Ussher’s pivotal role in developing the covenant of works and show how crucial this formulation was to his entire theological project. Chapter 2 demonstrates the integral links between catholic Christianity and James Ussher’s covenant of works.

198 Skinner, “Motives, Intentions and Interpretation,” 90–​102; Gribben, John Owen and English Puritanism thoroughly implemented the concerns of literary history within a biographical framework.

2 The Content of the Covenant of Works Introduction James Ussher described God’s relationship to Adam, the first human, as the covenant of law, but this doctrine’s significance has been long overlooked in the history of early modern thought and especially within scholarship on conforming Reformed clergy. This chapter shows that Ussher formulated this doctrine by resetting various aspects of traditional theology in a covenantal framework. Ussher’s covenant of works wove together doctrines of creation, divine image, law, and eschatology and became a paradigm suffused into many doctrines of his theological system. These specific aspects of continuity between traditional Christian doctrine and Ussher’s covenant theology highlight his appropriation of the intellectualist paradigm, the law’s foundational role, and the importance of a representative Adam. The exploration of these themes shows that the covenant of works had complex origins and its beginnings cannot be ascribed to philosophically driven dogmatics devoid of exegesis or to simplistic Bible reading.1 Ussher’s construction of the covenant of works reveals layers of reflection upon new exegesis, traditional presuppositions, and theological integration. Ussher thought this covenant controlled not only the eternal destiny of Adam and his progeny but also the relationship of works and rewards within creational, soteriological, and eschatological contexts. Although there was always debate in the Christian tradition about the role of works, post-​Reformation discussions gave particular significance to Adam’s works. The Reformed tradition described Adam as the representative of all humankind in the Garden of Eden. Whether or not he succeeded in obeying God’s commands would determine the destiny

1 RichardA. Muller, “Either Expressly Set Down . . . or by Good and Necessary Consequence,” in Richard A. Muller and Roland S. Ward (eds.), Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation and the Directory for Public Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2007), 69–​81; contra David A. Weir, The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-​Century Reformation Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 158. Catholicity and the Covenant of Works. Harrison Perkins, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197514184.001.0001

42  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works of his race.2 Theologians described Adam’s representative role in federal or covenantal terms that designated him as head of the covenant. The premise of this covenant was that God promised to reward Adam’s obedience. This chapter analyzes how Ussher prioritized the covenant of works as a theological foundation. Scholarship on early modern religion has assessed the covenant of works in various ways. Some historians of theology criticized the doctrine as demurring from older and purer versions of Reformed thought or as being designed to soften the doctrine of reprobation.3 Others have noticed that its development fit within the early modern Reformed tradition’s developmental trajectory.4 Richard Muller concluded that “despite the considerable scrutiny that the Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works has received at the hands of twentieth-​century historians and theologians, the doctrine remains little understood and much debated, whether from the perspective of its historical origins or from the perspective of its theological content.”5 This chapter explores the conceptual background to the covenant of works by examining how Ussher drew upon both the broader Christian tradition and more proximate Reformed concerns to develop his formulation. Several considerations warrant this detailed exploration of Ussher’s doctrine. He never wrote one discursive summa on theology, and his ideas are scattered across his many publications and manuscripts. Collecting the arguments from relevant sections of his works is no small task. Even though Ussher was highly prolific throughout his long literary career, collative analysis reveals that his arguments for the covenant of works were remarkably uniform. Further, 2 Willem J. van Asselt, “Christ, Predestination, and Covenant in Post-​Reformation Reformed Theology,” in Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–​1800 (New York: OUP, 2016), 221–​25; J. V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Contexts and Theological Insights (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), 138–​58; Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids, MI: RHB, 2012), 221–​35. 3 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, trans. G. W. Bromiley, 14 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Hendriksen, 2010), 4.1.1–​78; J. B. Torrance, “Covenant or Contract? A Study of the Theological Background of Worship in Seventeenth Century Scotland,” SJT 23 (1970): 51–​69; Holmes Rolston III, John Calvin Versus the Westminster Confession (Richmond, VA: Westminster John Knox Press, 1972); Amanda Louise Capern, “Slipperye Times and Dangerous Dayes: James Ussher and the Calvinist Reformation of Britain 1560–​1660,” PhD diss., University of New South Wales, 1991, 60–​61; J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1981), 200–​215. 4 Richard A. Muller, “Covenant and Conscience in English Reformed Theology: Three Variations on a 17th Century Theme,” WTJ 42 (1980): 308–​34; Richard A. Muller, “Divine Covenants, Absolute and Conditional:  John Cameron and the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology,” MAJT 17 (2006): 11–​56; J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace (Göttingen: V&R, 2007), 78–​147. 5 Richard A. Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law,” in After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Νew York: OUP, 2003), 176.

Content of the Covenant of Works  43 Ussher deployed the covenant of works in paradigmatic fashion and, as will be traced out in later chapters, seemed to explain other doctrines intentionally in reference to it. It could moreover be said that the covenant of works became a pervasive motif since it tied together foundation-​level doctrines such as nature and law. Other studies make sweeping claims about covenant theology without actually examining its theological inner workings. These large-​ scale conclusions rushed past important points that early modern authors made by using the covenant of works.6 Examination of particular aspects of the covenant of works in Ussher’s thought shows the convergence of various strands of doctrinal thinking into one complex doctrine. This chapter thoroughly surveys the components of Ussher’s covenant of works and indicates why it, as an integration of foundational doctrines, could ground other doctrines. Ussher built his doctrine of the covenant of works on the foundational premises of the natural law, God’s initial eschatological purposes for creation, and the centrality of Adam’s representative role, and these premises show how deeply catholic his formulation of this doctrine was. The natural law tradition goes at least as far back as Tertullian (c. 155–​c. 240) and Origen (c. 184–​253), and Thomas Aquinas emphasized it in the medieval period along with Adam’s original eschatological goal.7 The emphasis in both this chapter and Chapter 3 on Ussher’s links to Aquinas underlines the point about the catholicity of the covenant of works, but also furthers Stephen Hampton’s argument about connections between the Thomist and Reformed conformist traditions. Hampton contended that the post-​ Restoration Reformed conformists stood predominantly in the Thomist tradition on the doctrine of God.8 The present chapter serves to show that the connections between Thomism and Reformed conformity extend much further than simply the doctrine of God to many theological areas and to show that those connections can be located earlier than the period Hampton examined. The

6 Aaron C. Denlinger, Omnes in Adam ex pacto Dei: Ambrogio Catarino’s Doctrine of Covenantal Solidarity and Its Influence on Post-​ Reformation Reformed Theologians (Göttingen:  V&R, 2010),  12–​13. 7 John Anthony McGuckin, The Path of Christianity:  The First Thousand Years (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 136–​46; Michael Horton, Justification: Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan, 2018), 54–​66; Brian Davies, Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae:  A Guide and Commentary (New York: OUP, 2014), 212–​22; Michael Baur, “Law and Natural Law,” in Brian Davies and Eleonor Stump (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Aquinas (New York: OUP, 2012), 244–​48; Carl R. Trueman, Grace Alone: Salvation as a Gift of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 96–​102. 8 Stephen Hampton, Anti-​Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I (Oxford: OUP, 2008), 221–​65.

44  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works argument here and in Chapter 3 is that Reformed appropriations of Thomas should not be at all surprising, even though they were certainly eclectic, and when Reformed conformists made use of Thomas, it simply underscored the Reformed aspect of their conformity. Ussher, therefore, based other doctrines on the covenant of works precisely because it bound together various ideas from the Christian theological tradition, cast them in a Protestant tone, and unified those doctrines in an integrated framework of covenant terminology.

Framing the Covenant of Works Scholarship on early modern theology has made several competing claims about the development, purpose, and nature of the covenant of works in the Reformed tradition. Although the main lines of interpretation for historic covenant theology were surveyed in Chapter 1, it is necessary here to review the literature that pertains more specifically to the doctrine of the covenant of works. Several scholars claimed that the covenant theology of the Westminster Standards evidences a steep departure from the theology of earlier Reformed thinker John Calvin. The argument was that the covenant of works diluted the Reformed tradition with legalism by giving Adam the ability to obtain blessings from God by obedience.9 Holmes Rolston III thought that because there were Reformed thinkers who did not believe Adam was in need of grace before the Fall, law overrode the role of grace in their thought.10 Ussher, however, used the covenant of works to maximize Christ’s work and the certainty of God’s grace throughout his theology. Others have noticed the paradigmatic importance of the covenant of works in early modern theology but still faltered by interpreting it as a tool to repair an inconsistent system. David Weir argued that the covenant of works was the defining feature of federal theology but that it resulted from “systematic, dogmatic thinking, not from exegetical study of Scripture.”11 According to him, the covenant of works was not a synthesis of biblical reflection but an attempt to

9 Thomas F. Torrance, Scottish Theology:  From John Knox to John McLeod Campbell (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 125–​53; Torrance, “Covenant or Contract?,” 51–​69. For critique of this thesis, see Richard A. Muller, “Calvin and the ‘Calvinists’: Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities Between the Reformation and Orthodoxy, Part  1,” and “Calvin and the ‘Calvinists’:  Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities between the Reformation and Orthodoxy, Part 2,” both in After Calvin, 63–​102. 10 Rolston, John Calvin Versus the Westminster Confession,  14–​22. 11 Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology, 158.

Content of the Covenant of Works  45 reconcile theological tensions between God’s sovereignty and Adam’s Fall. Weir thought Adam’s choice to sin was a problem for those who advocated that God controlled history, and he further claimed that a focus on predestination had eliminated the need for justification—​that is, there was no need for people to be made right with God temporally since they were eternally ordained to heaven anyway. He argued that the covenant of works, as a historical mechanism to shape human destiny, reintroduced justification without extensive connections to predestination.12 Amanda-​Louise Capern claimed that Ussher was in the strand of covenant theology that needed the covenant of works to reconcile competing ideas of predestination, reprobation, and human responsibility.13 Although connections did grow between doctrines when covenant theology was used to structure them, it is too much to say that the covenant of works was devised to resolve a tension.14 Covenantal themes were not tacked onto theological issues to reconcile tensions but were naturally integrated over time across various doctrines.15 This chapter demonstrates that Ussher’s doctrine of the covenant of works was the result of reflection on several themes found in catholic Christian theology and in his refinements of generally accepted Reformed commitments. Further, the covenant of works formed a paradigm that linked together doctrines that support a forensic doctrine of justification. The studies just noted failed to analyze the development of the covenant of works accurately or with nuance. Torrance, Weir, and Capern did not adequately explain the development of the covenant of works because they did not account for certain features of the Reformation era. The late sixteenth-​ century shift in Protestant theology toward a scholastic phase of more precise formulation was not disconnected from commitments to ad fontes and exegesis.16 Studies that explain the covenant of works as a resolution 12 Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology, 62–​63, 146. 13 Capern, “Slipperye Times and Dangerous Dayes,” 60–​61. 14 Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law,” 177. 15 Robert Letham, “The Foedus Operum: Some Factors Accounting for Its Development,” SCJ 14, no. 4 (1983): 457–​67. 16 Willem J. van Asselt, “Scholasticism in the Time of Early Orthodoxy (ca. 1560–​1620),” in Willem J. van Asselt, T. Theo J. Pleizier, Pieter L. Rouwendal, and Maarten Wisse, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, trans. Albert Gootjes (Grand Rapids, MI: RHB, 2010), 103–​31; Willem J. van Asselt, “Scholasticism in the Time of High Orthodoxy (ca. 1620–​1700),” in Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, 132–​66; PRRD 1:27–​84; Richard A. Muller, “Reformed Theology Between 1600–​1800,” in Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 172–​77; Carl R. Trueman, “Scripture and Exegesis in Early Modern Reformed Theology,” in Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 179–​92; Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law,” 177; PRRD 2:509–​19; Donald Sinnema, “The Distinction Between Scholastic and Popular: Andreas Hyperius and Reformed Scholasticism,” in Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark (eds.), Protestant Scholasticism:  Essays in Reassessment (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 127–​43.

46  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works of a tension within Reformed thought—​usually predestination and human responsibility—​assumed a Hegelian view of history and the development of ideas. This assumption excludes the complexities in the development of doctrinal thought, but this study highlights several of the historical tributaries that contributed to Ussher’s covenant of works. As explained below, his view balanced a modified Thomist approach to God’s law, a thoroughly forensic view of justification, and covenantal terminology, but it was not constructed to curb tensions with predestination. Historians reduce change to mechanical reactions when they suggest that one issue, or one source, is the single origin for the covenant of works (or any doctrine, for that matter). In contrast, Aaron Denlinger correctly noted that Zacharius Ursinus (1534–​1583) developed his understanding of the covenant of creation both from what Calvin taught him in his brief stint in Geneva and from what he learned in his years of study with Lutheran theologian Phillip Melanchthon (1497–​1560).17 This model is far more nuanced than those approaches that starkly bifurcate theological trajectories and neglect the diversity of sources that theologians in the Reformed tradition appropriated from generation to generation.18 The Reformed tradition used a plurality of sources, multiple contributing intellectual tributaries, and the modification of long-​ held Christian ideas. Regarding the covenant of works, Denlinger showed that a sixteenth-​century Roman Catholic theologian, Ambrogio Catarino (1484–​ 1553), argued for a covenantal view of Adam’s relationship to God and to the rest of humanity. Whether or not Denlinger’s argument that Catarino was a definitive source for the Reformed development of a covenantal presentation of Adam is fully persuasive, he certainly proved that a Catholic theologian held a view of Adam’s prelapsarian condition similar to that of later Reformed thinkers. Catarino even traded hostilities with Calvin and participated in the Council of Trent, which indicates he was not struggling to solve tensions within Protestant doctrine when he developed a covenantal view of Adam and original sin.19 The primary sources, therefore, attest that the origins of the covenant of works cannot be reduced to isolated issues that developed within Reformed Protestantism. Reductionist approaches to theological development also fail to consider how a doctrine such as the covenant of works, in mature versions, took



17 Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 29.

18 Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant; Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology. 19 Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 13–​14, 27.

Content of the Covenant of Works  47 on more than one function in the theological system.20 Proper historical method should examine the way the sources show how people implemented ideas according to their purposes, but some historians of covenant theology have looked for what could have been the reason behind the formation of the idea.21 This approach is more speculative than analytical, and even if their suggestion is valid, it often still ignores additional ways in which the idea under consideration was used. In contrast to Weir’s speculative that speculative formulations drove federal thought, Brian Lee made an impressive case that exegesis drove even late seventeenth-​century formulations of Reformed covenant theology. Johannes Cocceius (1603–​1669), likely most notable for his dogmatic contributions to covenant theology, exemplified the Reformed method of continual interaction between biblical commentary and dogmatic theology that shaped doctrinal construction. Lee rightly assessed Weir’s speculative approach as having failed to take into consideration the Reformed tradition’s self-​conscious commitment to exegesis.22 J. V. Fesko, however, has written the most important study of the covenant of works to date, giving an extensive historical survey of how various Reformed theologians defended and implemented the doctrine from the sixteenth century to the twentieth.23 This work is a milestone in tracing the nuanced ways that theologians used this doctrine despite some of their differing commitments, as well as in examining some of the crucial issues connected to the doctrine. Fesko’s study and some of the others just cited have made significant contributions to overcoming the reductionist methodology that previously dominated the discussions about the covenant of works. Ussher’s covenant of works exemplifies the need to look at doctrines within a theologian’s broader web of ideas. Although the argument here concerning Ussher is that his covenant theology cannot be understood apart from his other doctrinal views, this approach should be applied to other thinkers as well. This integrated approach forces consideration of the many ways in which the idea of covenant was used. The covenant of works comes into particular focus at this point because, as Denlinger noted regarding the tradition generally, it took on several theological functions within Ussher’s system of thought. The covenant was not a tool to relieve the tension between 20 Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 29. 21 Harrison Perkins, “Reconsidering the Development of the Covenant of Works:  A Study in Doctrinal Trajectory,” CTJ 53, no. 2 (November 2018): 289–​94. 22 Brian J. Lee, Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology:  Reformation Developments in the Interpretation of Hebrews 7–​10 (Göttingen: V&R, 2009), 15–​16; PRRD 2:507–​19. 23 J. V. Fesko, The Covenant of Works: Origins, Development, and Reception (OUP, forthcoming).

48  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works predestinarian theology and human responsibility, a perspective defended in Chapter 4, but rather functioned as a paradigm through which Ussher connected many doctrines. This means that even if this covenant had explanatory force for handling predestination and human choice, reducing its formative cause to a single reason ignores how primary sources implemented the doctrine in a host of ways. The covenant of works cannot be reduced to one point of origin or a single purpose, nor presented as the solution to one problem, precisely because it was not an isolated doctrine. It developed as a structural device within the broad context of Reformed thought. The covenant of works established a paradigm in Ussher’s thought for how God relates to the human race. This chapter examines some of the ways this covenant formed a structural pillar in his thinking, but the pivotal role it played in his theology is too broad to cover in one chapter. It had far-​reaching influence throughout Ussher’s doctrinal system.

Beginning with the First Adam God made the covenant of works with Adam as federal head of all humankind. The way Adam fared in this covenant would determine how the rest of humanity would fare as well. Adam’s state of innocence was an important factor in how this covenant was shaped because Adam, as made in the image of God, was uniquely equipped for this covenant relationship.24 Indeed, Ussher thought humanity should be considered in three different states, and the first is “the state of innocencie, commonly had and lost of all mankind, both elect and reprobate, without difference, Eccl. 7.”25 Ussher believed that “Angels and Men” are “the principall creatures” and “Man consisteth of two diverse parts; a Body, and a Soule.”26 He gave a certain priority to humanity among the earthly created order, since, among earthly creatures, only humans have a spiritual dimension and this part of human nature is immortal. The human 24 James Ussher, The Principles of Christian Religion with a Brief Method the Doctrine Thereof (1653), 7–​8. “Q. How did God make man at the beginning? A. According to his own likenese and image. Q. Wherein was the Image of God principally seen? A. In the perfection of the Understanding; and freedome, and holenesse of the Will.” Cf. James Ussher, A Body of Divinitie, or, the Summe and Substance of Christian Religion (1645), 105: “What is the excellency of man consisting in qualities? Knowledge and wisdome in the understanding, Psal. 51.6 Col. 3.10. Righteousness and holinesse in the free-​will, Eph. 4.24 I Pet. I.15, 16. and herein, as hath been shewed, did man especially resemble his Maker.” 25 Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 123. 26 Ussher, Principles, 6; Ussher, Body of Divinitie,  102–​4.

Content of the Covenant of Works  49 race differed from angels, however, as humans have a body in addition to the spiritual aspect.27 He further argued, citing Colossians 3:10, Ephesians 4:24, and Ecclesiastes 7:31, that the image of God is principally seen “in the perfection of the Understanding; and the freedome, and holinesse of the Will.”28 The attributes that Ussher considered most important in the first man are therefore notable because they all related to his status as a conscious being. Knowledge, righteousness, and holiness of will are all marks of a creature that can not only make decisions but also render ethical verdicts. In connection with these early modern considerations of personhood, it is particularly important to observe that Ussher emphasized that Adam’s faculties were free when he was created. “In particular, however, the soul with the faculties of the mind, namely, wisdom and the holiness of man’s free will, was formed in likeness with God, and was stamped in the image of God.”29 God originally made human nature with faculties that were able to work freely, but Adam’s violation of the covenant of works obliterated that freedom, making God’s sovereign act necessary for salvation, as explored more in Chapter 4. Ussher argued that these traits of personhood made Adam fit or suitable for the covenant relationship, and so he consistently presented God’s first act of providence toward Adam as his making a covenant: “Now wee are come to his Providence upon men in this world. And in that Providence wee will consider the Covenant that He made with man.”30 He observed that the covenant of works was made with Adam after he was created.31 Yet, as his explanations of this covenant illustrate, he thought that the faculties that stamped Adam with the divine image were necessary for him to be able to fulfill his covenantal obligations. He linked the distinct features of humanity as they were created to the covenantal bond God made with Adam, which accommodated Adam’s natural abilities. As we will see, Ussher consistently emphasized that Adam was to meet the covenant terms by his natural strength. This point is important for considering how Ussher framed his doctrine of the covenant and the reward it offered in contrast to the Roman Catholic view of Adam’s obedience, particularly the donum superadditum, which taught that Adam’s 27 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 34v–​35r; Ussher, Principles, 6–​7; Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 102–​3. 28 Ussher, Principles, 7–​8; cf. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 104. 29 Queen’s College, Oxford, MS 217, fol. 35r (In praecipuis autem anima facultatibus mentis nempe sapientiâ et voluntatis liberae sanctitate hominis cu[m]‌Deo conditae similitudo et Dei imago expressa est.); cf. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 104. “Righteousnesse and holinesse in the free-​will, Eph. 4.24 I Pet. 1.15, 16.” 30 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 21r (sermon on Genesis 3:1, dated July 3, 1642). 31 Ussher, Principles, 9–​10; Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 123.

50  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works original righteousness was not inherent to his nature but added. Ussher’s argument, in contrast, depended on the traits with which Adam was created. This discussion shows that Ussher bound the original state of Adam in the created order to covenantal features. His anthropology was not loose and disconnected but, rather, laced together his whole system. Although this discussion about which faculties equipped Adam for his covenantal obligations tells us something about what Ussher thought of human nature, it is the inner workings of the covenant of works that provide greatest insight into his anthropology. These other features of the covenant of works show that Ussher developed a heavily forensic view of the relationship of Adam to his posterity, in contrast to the predominant realism in the Christian tradition of the previous centuries.

Terms of the Covenant Ussher taught that humans owe absolute obedience to God as their Creator and that this obedience characterized the covenant of works, even though God owes nothing in return for it because the creatures’ duty is to obey their maker. In 1624, Ussher critiqued Roman Catholic notions of merit, arguing that “the lesson which our Saviour taught his disciples, is farre different from this, Luk. 17.10 ‘When ye have done all those things which are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which is our dutie to doe.’ ”32 Ussher did not think there was anything about Adam’s obedience as such that deserved any reward. There was no inherent connection between the obedience creatures offer to God and a reward they receive. Obedience, rather, is something creatures owe to God because he made them. He is not obligated to reward that obedience if he does not wish to do so. If a reward is given to creatures, it must be because God had promised to give that reward to them once the terms for receiving that reward are fulfilled. The crucial distinction to understand regarding the terms of the covenant of works is between the condition of works in nature and the condition of works because of the covenant.33 The notion that a creature’s works do not entitle him to any 32 James Ussher, An Answer to a Challenge Made by a Jesuite in Ireland (Dublin, 1624), 498; cf. James Ussher, Immanuel, or the Mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God (Dublin, 1638), 26; Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 195: “Whereas though being accepted, we must in thankfulnesse doe all we can for God, yet when all is done, we must acknowledge ourselves unprofitable servants.” 33 See also the section “Ussher and the Notion of Merit” in Chapter 3.

Content of the Covenant of Works  51 reward from God unless God promised to reward those works is the critical issue behind the formulation of the covenant of works. As will be seen, Ussher said the covenant that God made with Adam established a mechanism to enable Adam to receive a reward for his works for himself and for those whom he represents—​namely, all humanity. Ussher made passing reference to the terms of the covenant of works in a sermon delivered before James I on June 20, 1624, and the purpose of those terms within the sermon was significant: The tree in Paradise, of which our first parents were forbidden to eate, was called the tree of knowledge of good and evill: because it signified unto them, that as now, while they stood upon termes of obedience with their Creator, they knew nothing but good; so at what time soever they did transgresse his commandement, they should begin to know evill also, whereof before they had no knowledge, not but that they had an intellectual knowledge of it before (for he that knoweth good, cannot be ignorant of that which is contrarie unto it; Rectum being alwayes index sui et oblique:) but that till then they never had felt any evill, they never had any experimentall knowledge of it.34

Ussher suggested that the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden was a reminder that, even though Adam and Eve were created in a state of goodness, they stood in relation to God in terms of their obedience. Two key points relate to the content of the covenant of works, and then two further points connect this to broader considerations. The two points regarding the content of the covenant of works are the condition of the covenant and the means available to fulfill the condition. The important phrase here is “while they stood upon termes of obedience with their Creator.” Ussher did not name the covenant of works explicitly in this sermon, nor go into detail about its other aspects, but he did state the condition of a relationship with God in the original created state. In this respect, that condition is the same as that of the covenant of works, and the condition required for Adam and Eve to stand with God was obedience. Ussher made no qualification in this sermon, nor added further conditions; obedience featured individually and centrally as the way which humanity related to God in the original state. The 34 James Ussher, A Briefe Declaration of the Universalitie of the Church of Christ (1629), 36 (italics original).

52  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works absence of the term “covenant of works” is also significant in this context. The sermon was delivered to James I, who preferred moderation to doctrinal precisianism.35 Ussher likely omitted doctrinal terminology to avoid disapproval, perhaps from concern that the king would perceive it as divisively going beyond the “Consent touching true Religion” that canon law prescribed, yet he still thought the content of this covenant was necessary for the king to hear.36 The second point regarding the content of the covenant of works concerns the means by which Adam could achieve this obedience. Ussher argued that Adam and Eve “knew nothing but good” in the created state. He further explained they had an intellectual understanding of evil but not an experiential knowledge of it. The implication was that the created state was one of integrity and uprightness that would require intentional motion toward evil for it to become part of human experience. Ussher made the same point in his 1643–​44 lectures at Oxford specifically in reference to “the command of righteousness in the first covenant.”37 He taught that “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was joined to this threat, so to corroborate it, by which, indeed, it was declared that it would happen that, if he ate from that from which they had been forbidden to eat, just as he had previously experienced every good thing, so likewise every type of evil will be experienced.”38 This argument separated Ussher’s doctrine of the created state from that of his medieval predecessors and Roman Catholic contemporaries, who held that humanity needed supernatural gifts to remain in original righteousness. As Robert Bellarmine (1542–​1621) argued in his controversy concerning grace to the first man, “That uprightness with which Adam had been created, and without which every man after his fall was produced, was a supernatural gift.”39 Ussher’s role as professor of theological controversies at Trinity College, Dublin, was to refute Bellarmine, and so it is not surprising to find that Ussher’s views were shaped in direct opposition to this view of the donum superadditum.40 Some medieval theologians, following Scotus, had argued 35 Alan Ford, James Ussher: Theology History, and Politics in Early-​Modern Ireland and England (New York: OUP, 2007), 110–​11. 36 [Church of England], Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiasticall (1604), canon V. 37 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 37r. 38 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 37v (Hinc com[m]‌inationi confirmandae adiunctu[m] erat arboris scientiae boni et mali eo enim denunciabat[u]r fore ut si com[m]itteret ea quae fuerant ei interdicta sicut o[mn]e bonum ante exp[er]tus fuerat, ita fore ut o[mn]e genus mali experiret[u]r:). 39 Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis Christianae Fidei, tomus quartus (Sartorius, 1601), 15 (this work is cited as column number) (Rectitudo illa cum qua Adam creatus fuit, & sine qua post eius lapsum homines omnes nascuntur, donum supernaturale fuit). 40 UW 14:1–​383.

Content of the Covenant of Works  53 that God had to supply humanity with special grace even in the created state in order to prevent the Fall and that Adam had to earn original righteousness rather than having it as part of his natural constitution.41 Ussher described the Catholic view:  “But the Papist says, that wee have lost a Supernatural Power, But not the natural Power: That is not lost, but only debilitated By the fall.” He responded, “Man By the fall hath lost that Supernatural Good, that was natural to him Before his fall: And that we cannot recover but by a Supernatural Power.”42 Regarding the ends to which humanity was ordered before the Fall, Ussher rejected a sharp distinction between the natural and supernatural, affirming that Adam was ordered to supernatural good according to his natural endowments.43 He also affirmed that humanity’s first parents were created righteous, and that they could perform the necessary obedience by the strength they had by nature.44 The first broader consideration from this sermon passage is Ussher’s argument for the unity of the church. The printed version originated from a sermon delivered to James I, in which Ussher argued that the church is bound together by a common faith, as enumerated in the creedal tradition, and so it is significant that Ussher discussed the covenant of works’ contents, even if not its terminology, since this study argues that Ussher tied together ecumenical themes in this doctrine. According to Ussher, although the Roman communion added trappings of the Antichrist to the creedal foundation, wherever the creeds are affirmed, the foundation remains.45 The church’s job is to expand properly upon the heads of the creeds.46 Knowledge is necessary for true belief, and so Christianity rests on a content-​based foundation, which means doctrine must be taught.47 This supports the supposition 41 DLGTT, “donum concreatum,” 97–​ 98, “donum superadditum,” 98–​ 99; Bellarmine, De Controversiis,  15–​42. 42 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 27v (sermon on Genesis 6:5, dated July 31, 1642). 43 Cf. ST, 1a2ae.109.3; Joseph P. Wawrykow, God’s Grace and Human Action: “Merit” in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995), 165–​67; Henri de Lubac, The Mystery of the Supernatural (New York: Crossroad, 1998). 44 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 21r (sermon on Genesis 3:1, dated July 3, 1642), 27v (sermon on Genesis 6:5, dated July 31, 1642); Irish Articles, sig. B3r (article 23), sig. B2v (article 21); Ussher, Principles (1653), 7, 10–​12, 69; Body of Divinitie, 104–​5, 115–​66, 124–​25. In one instance, Ussher passingly remarked that Adam was “full of grace,” but his point there was not about the terms or content of the covenant of works, but that Adam had everything he needed not to sin, which made it so shocking that he did fall (Bodl. MS Eng. th.e.25, fol. 34r). This one instance of phrasing that is only indirectly related to the covenant of works does not undermine the arguments about the broader structure of Ussher’s doctrine of the covenant of works. Ussher’s point that Adam was given everything he needed not to sin in fact underscores the exact argument, even if Ussher uncharacteristically varied his expression. 45 Ussher, Briefe Declaration, 20–​21,  22–​23. 46 Queen’s College, Oxford, MS 217, fol. 41v. 47 Ussher, Briefe Declaration,  31–​37.

54  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works that Ussher was in the intellectualist tradition, which prioritized the intellect over the will by emphasizing that the final decision of the mind, not the appetites or affections, determines a person’s choice. He made this clear in his order of human functions: “head, heart, hand.”48 Additionally, Ussher’s commitment to teaching the creeds as the summary of the Christian faith may further mark the conformity of his Reformed theology, as the conformists tended to have a more thorough commitment to the creeds as such, whereas dissenting puritans tended to prize them only insomuch as they found them to be biblical.49 A comparison of England’s Thirty-​Nine Articles and the Irish Articles, both of which explicitly name the creeds as authoritative, with the Westminster Confession of Faith, which intentionally omitted a reference to the creeds, seems to confirm that point.50 The second broader consideration is that Ussher preached this argument to the king. He did not regularly print his sermons and was selective about what sermonic material he did publish. This indicates that Ussher saw the notion of obedience as the covenantal terms between God and humanity as a mainstream idea, as he was willing to use it for a passing argument in a sermon printed in connection to the king. Ussher’s notion that these doctrinal points were relatively mainstream further underscores the catholicity underlying the covenant of works. The standard by which Adam’s perfect obedience would have been measured was an important aspect of Ussher’s covenant of works that also highlights its fundamental catholicity. He believed that there was a correspondence between the Decalogue and the natural law. Natural law meant that God made creation with precepts built into it for humanity to keep.51 Ussher explained natural law thus: “The law is that by which they were initially instructed by the help of nature and creation, and the blessings they received made them fit to render all that must be rendered.”52 He spoke of the promise and threat made to Adam as “the parts of the legal covenant, in 48 Ussher, Briefe Declaration, 38. 49 Chad B. Van Dixhoorn, “New Taxonomies of the Westminster Assembly (1643–​52):  The Creedal Controversy as a Case Study,” RRR 6, no. 1 (2004):  82–​106; Stephen Hampton, “ ‘God’s Cause’:  Reformed Orthodoxy and the Early Stuart Church,” paper presented at the Society for Reformation Studies conference, Westminster College, Cambridge, April 11, 2018. 50 English Articles, sig. B3v; Irish Articles, sig. A4v; Van Dixhoorn, “New Taxonomies,” 95–​102. 51 Robert Von Friedeburg, “The Rise of Natural Law in the Early Modern Period,” in Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 625–​38; Stephen J. Grabill, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006); David VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms:  A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009). 52 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 36r (Ea est quâ naturae et creationis beneficio imbuebantur et ad quam praestandam donis ita acceptis facti errant idonei).

Content of the Covenant of Works  55 which the whole natural law is contained.”53 He found the Sabbath to be an example of this principle: “For mine own part I never yet doubted, but took it for granted; that as the setting of some whole day apart for God’s solemn Worship was Juris Divini naturalis, so that this solemn day should be one in seven, was juris Divini positivi recorded in the fourth Commandment.”54 His point was that the written commandment to honor the Sabbath, given to Israel at Mount Sinai, was not the origin of that commandment; rather, the natural law built that command into the world.55 It was a common Reformed view that the Decalogue republished, or summarized, the natural law.56 As John Calvin wrote, “The law of God that we call the moral law consists as nothing else than a testimony of the natural law and of that conscience which God has carved upon the souls of men.”57 Ussher’s phrases Juris Divini naturalis (divine natural law) and juris Divini positivi (divine positive law) are interesting in their own right. Juris Divini naturalis shows that even though Ussher conceived of law as something common to human persons and built into the created order, it was still God’s law. Natural law is, therefore, not a secular notion, independent or disconnected from God, but is part of God’s revelation. Despite some misconceptions of natural law as an autonomous human rule, natural law is a way that God governs human life according to moral standards that he established as part of the fabric of creation.58 Ussher preached: “Though the Gentiles had no written Law, yet they had an Inborne Law, An Apprehension of their thoughts to discerne 53 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 37v (legalis foed[e]‌ris p[ar]tes, quibus tota legis natura continetur). 54 Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:715. This letter was to John Ley, but it was not precisely dated. 55 Ussher gave substantial attention to this point in his letter to William Twisse, supporting the latter’s argument regarding the Sabbath. This letter has been dated c. 1636, but the date is not certain; Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:706–​14. 56 Stephen Hampton, “Sin, Grace, and Free Choice in Post-​Reformation Reformed Theology,” in Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 239; DLGTT, “lex Mosaica” and “lex naturalis,” 196–​98; Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law,” 181–​83, 188; Von Friedeburg, “Rise of Natural Law,” 627–​32; Jonathan Willis, The Reformation of the Decalogue: Religious Identity and the Ten Commandments in England, c. 1485–​1625 (Cambridge: CUP, 2017), 20–​28; Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly (Grand Rapids, MI:  RHB, 2012), 408–​10, 450–​53, 546–​47; Letham, “Foedus Operum,” 462–​63; John T. McNeill, “Natural Law in the Teaching of the Reformers,” Journal of Religion 26, no. 3 (July 1946): 168–​82; Lillback, “Ursinus’ Development of the Covenant of Creation: A Debt to Melanchthon or Calvin?,” 274–​86; Ian Hazlett, “Church and Church/​State Relations in the Post-​ Reformation Reformed Tradition,” in Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 252–​53. 57 CO, 30: col. 1106 (Dei legem, quam morale vocamus, constet non aliud esse quam naturalis legis testimonium, et eius conscientiae quae hominum animis a Deo insculpta est). 58 Contra Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, trans. G. W. Bromiley, 14 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Hendriksen, 2010), II/​1: 174–​78; VI/​1: 369–​72; Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, Natural Theology, trans. Peter Fraenkel (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1946), 101–​10.

56  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Betweene Good and Eveill:  certayne Principles in natures written In the Heart.”59 The clear point was that God stamped an understanding of his law into every person, and it was tied to their very creation. Ussher’s point that the divine positive law made explicit the divine natural law is evidence of his intellectualist presuppositions. He thought the divine command was not simply according to God’s choice, as a voluntarist could say, but clarified the law of nature that God had established at creation. Some scholars have accused early modern theologians of anachronism for attributing aspects of the Mosaic law (e.g., the Sabbath commandment) to periods prior to God’s giving it at Sinai.60 These scholars thought that the covenant of works was a way of smoothing over cracks created by reading Israel’s positive law back into the primordial history and patriarchal period, but this was not how early modern theologians reasoned. Ussher himself argued that there is exegetical and natural evidence that upholds his position. He wrote to William Twisse in support of the latter’s book on the Sabbath: And the Text, Gen. 2.3 (as you well note) is so clear for the ancient institution of the Sabbath, and so fully vindicated by Dr. Rivet, from the Exceptions of Gomarus, that I see no reason in the Earth why any Man should make doubt thereof; especially considering withal, that the very Gentiles, both civil and barbarous, both ancient and of later days, as it were by an universal kind of Tradition, retained the distinction of the seven days of the Week.61

Ussher saw express evidence in Genesis 2 that the Sabbath law had existed since creation.62 He also interpreted the universal use of a seven-​day week as evidence that this pattern, which included the command to set apart one of the seven days, existed from the beginning. He cited arguments that most likely referred to the highly technical exegetical treatment of Exodus 20 by the French Huguenot André Rivet (1572–​1651) in preference over those of

59 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 34r (sermon on Romans 1:32, dated September 11, 1642). 60 E.g., Capern, “Slipperye Times and Dangerous Dayes,” 56. 61 Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:707 (letter dated c. 1636); William Twisse, Of the Morality of the Fourth Commandment, as Still in Force to Binde Christians (1641). Significantly, this letter well preceded the earliest edition of Twisse’s work, which dates to 1641. Ussher did, however, refer to a letter from Twisse, which is no longer extant. Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:706 n. 2. It is likely that Twisse sent a manuscript copy of his book concerning the Sabbath to Ussher in hopes of getting feedback or recommendation. This would account for the contents of the letter. 62 The Sabbath was a highly charged political issue in the seventeenth century, which may have been a concern behind this letter. Kenneth L. Parker, The English Sabbath: A Study of Doctrine and Discipline from the Reformation to the Civil War, rev. ed. (Cambridge: CUP, 2010), 139–​216.

Content of the Covenant of Works  57 Franciscus Gomarus (1563–​1641), who wrote against a strict sabbatarian view.63 This is another indication that Reformed thinkers such as Ussher were dependent on exegesis as they developed covenantal ideas, even in regard to natural law.64 Further, Ussher argued that the Mosaic commandment was a restatement of a creation ordinance with ceremonial additions joined to it: And because the τὸ ῥητὸν65 of the fourth Commandment pointeth at the Sabbath, as it was in the first institution, the seventh day from the Creation:  therefore they held that Christians were not tied to the observance thereof. Whereupon you may observe, that S.  Augustine in his speculum (in operum tomo 3o) purposely selecting those things which appertained unto us Christians; doth wholly pretermit that Precept, in the recital of the Commandments of the Decalogue; Not because the substance of the Precept was absolutely abolished: but because it was in some parts held to be . . . ceremonial, and that the time afterwards was changed in the state of the New Testament, from the 7th to the first day of the week.66

He contended that the Sabbath law existed from the very beginning of creation, but it was also written down when God delivered the Law upon Sinai (juris Divini naturalis and juris Divini positivi). Ceremonial aspects were added to it because it became part of the whole economy of life delivered to the nation of Israel. The substance of the law—​namely, the command to set apart one day in seven for worship—​was and remains valid, but the ceremonial aspects that were relevant only to the nation of Israel were abolished with the coming of Christ. The fact that the Sabbath command was a law since creation means that it is still valid and binding upon humanity, again without the ceremonial aspects that were given only to Israel as the way to keep it. Ussher made this point by linking it to the practice in England in his day: “Accommodating the Law of God touching the Sabbath unto our observation of the Lord’s Day, by the self-​same Analogy; that the Church of England now doth in her publick Prayer: Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this Law.”67 The practice of Lord’s Day observance 63 André Rivet, Praelectiones in Cap[ut] XX Exodi (Lugduni Batavorum, 1632), 157–​ 207; Franciscus Gomarus, Investigatio, sententiae et originis, Sabbati (1628). Ussher recommended Rivet’s book in Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 42r. 64 Lee, Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology,  13–​72. 65 “The writing.” 66 Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:706–​7. 67 Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:707.

58  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works corresponded to the way the law functioned prior to Sinai, as Ussher said that the Sabbath command is still valid, but the ceremonial aspects were not required before Sinai nor after the fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant in the coming of Christ as they were during the Israelite theocracy. He explained this again in a sermon on the “Covenant of the Law” in 1651, and his position remained consistent.68 Ussher elsewhere argued for a more extensive natural law embedded in the creation of humankind beyond just the fourth commandment. The Irish Articles (1615) provided a framework that linked the natural law to the covenant of works, a framework that Ussher upheld throughout the rest of his career.69 Article 21 stated: Man being at the beginning created according to the image of God (which consisted especially in the Wisdome of his minde, & the true Holynesse of his free will) had the covenant of the lawe ingrafted in his heart: whereby God did promise unto him everlasting life, upon condition that he performed entire and perfect obedience unto his Commaundements, according to that measure of strength wherewith hee was endued in his creation, and threatened death unto him if he did not perform the same.70

This passage has two important features. First, it included the broader category of “Commaundements,” which shows that Ussher thought that the entire Decalogue was unbreakably bound together. He explained in one sermon how Adam violated each commandment of the Decalogue in his one act of breaking the covenant of works.71 This relationship of the whole Decalogue to the natural law is important because it distances him from Scotist (voluntarist) versions of natural law that said only the first two commandments of the Decalogue were unchangeable.72 Second, and important for outlining Ussher’s views the terms of the covenant of works in relation to the natural law, the “covenant of law,” another term for the covenant of works, is engrafted into the heart of every person because humans are made in the

68 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 228v (sermon on Galatians 3:12, dated June 29, 1651). 69 See the discussion in Chapter  1 concerning how TCD MS 287 is an early draft of the Irish Articles in Ussher’s hand that supports an appeal to the Articles as a direct reflection of Ussher’s theology, especially in this case as particular views are substantiated from other sources. 70 Irish Articles, sig. B2v (article 21). 71 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 23v–​24r (sermon on Genesis 3:2–​6, dated July 10, 1642). 72 Hannes Möhle, “Scotus’s Theory of Natural Law,” in Thomas Williams (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Duns Scotus (Cambridge: CUP, 2003), 315–​16.

Content of the Covenant of Works  59 image of God.73 The natural law, therefore, is intimately connected to Adam’s role as God’s representative in the created order. Setting aside a very long tradition of medieval discussion on the ontological aspects of the image of God, Ussher’s opinion was that “wisdom of his mind and the true holiness of his free will” explained how the image of God consisted of capabilities for acting righteously.74 This statement also included explicit reference to the terms of the covenant of works, or covenant of law. The covenant that was hardwired into Adam’s existence as the image of God has the “condition that he performed entire and perfect obedience.” Best efforts were not accepted, nor would God impute perfection to imperfect attempts.75 This view is a clear rejection of the Roman Catholic teaching on congruent merit.76 Additionally, this condition must be met “according to that measure of strength wherewith hee was endued in his creation,” which means Adam was fully able to complete the terms without a supernatural addition to his nature. Although Adam needed to “acknowledge that All that hee had was from Him [God],” still it was “out of that Ability that God gave us at first, might have stood; had power to obey: In the first Covenant, we had Power of ourselves to stand.”77 This follows on what was described earlier concerning how Ussher saw that the covenant terms accommodated what Adam would have been capable of achieving by his natural strength. The terms were not too difficult for an unfallen person to fulfill by natural abilities. This plainly rejected the Roman Catholic notion of the donum superadditum in which some theologians argued that Adam needed a supernatural gift in order to be able to be righteous. Ussher, in a sermon on the covenant of works, argued that Adam’s sin “was a wilfulnes; A wanton will to forsake God.” It seems Ussher thought Adam had to put effort into betraying God. Preaching at St. Paul’s Church in Covent Garden, Ussher argued, “The Agreement and Covenant was, That man should bee a loial subiect unto God That he should acknowledge, that All that hee had was 73 Ussher did use the terminology of “covenant of works”; e.g., Ussher, Principles, 71–​72; TCD MS 287, fol. 102v. 74 He taught this same view in CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 228r–​229r (sermon on Galatians 3:12, dated June 29, 1651). 75 DLGTT, “facere quod in se est,” 118. 76 DLGTT, “meritum de congruo,” 217–​18; David Steinmetz, “Medieval Nominalism and the Clerk’s Tale,” The Chaucer Review 12, no. 1 (1977): 44; Alistair McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: CUP, 2005), 87, 114–​15, 286; J. V. Fesko, “Arminius on Facientibus Quod in Se Est and Likely Medieval Sources,” in Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Systma, and Jason Zuidema (eds.), Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 358–​60. 77 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 21r (sermon on Genesis 3:1, dated July 3, 1642).

60  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works from Him: That he should be his vassal: That he should serve Him, with all his Power, and strength.”78 Ussher again linked the conditions to the natural law, saying, “The Commaund was universal obedience,” but he also expanded the terms of the covenant with Adam to include “a Particular Commaund, Thou shalt not eate of the Tree in the midst of the Garden: To eate of all the trees in the Garden, But not of that in the midst.” Ussher, however, did not think that this was a tedious and exhausting command; rather, this particular probationary command was “so poor and smal a thing,” which again increased the sinfulness of violating it. Far from thinking that God was a harsh king, Ussher saw him as a generous master who offered far greater blessings to his servant than his works could possibly deserve de facto. There was a disproportion between the work and reward, but Ussher did not argue that Adam needed God’s additional help to fulfil the covenant. Since the righteousness needed to fulfill the covenant stipulations was “fundamental to the constitution of man” as a donum concreatum, Adam was equipped in his natural state to fulfil the original covenant’s terms without extra divine assistance.79 It has been argued that most of the Reformed Orthodox believed that grace was necessary before the Fall, but this is a delicate discussion that requires great precision.80 Andrew Woolsey rightly drew attention to how “grace” would mean very distinct things before and after Adam’s Fall.81 Grace after the Fall would refer to God’s complete work of salvation, in which people are totally unable to hold up their end of the relationship. “Grace” before the Fall, for those theologians who spoke of this, would have referred to God’s general kindness and generosity to humankind in giving them even the possibility of gaining a reward by their obedience. Although it is not determinative for what the typical mode of speaking was among seventeenth-​ century theologians, as J. V. Fesko indicated, Ussher did not speak of grace in connection with the covenant of works.82 Ussher instead spoke of natural strength and of God’s favor, and there are historical factors that likely explain Ussher’s choice of language.83 His immediate context in Dublin as he formed 78 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 21r (sermon on Genesis 3:1, dated July 3, 1642). 79 DLGTT, “donum concreatum,” 97–​98. 80 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 45–​52, 74; Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2012), 225–​36; Beeke and Jones, Puritan Theology, 229–​32. 81 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity,  75–​76. 82 Fesko, Covenant of Works, ch. 4. 83 TCD MS 291, fol. 14v; Queen’s College, Oxford, MS 217, fol. 37v; Ussher, Principles (1653), 10; Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 136. I analyze these citations in depth in Chapter 3 in the section “Ussher on the Notion of Merit.”

Content of the Covenant of Works  61 and taught his theological positions was the threat of Roman Catholicism. The majority population of Ireland was still committed to Catholicism, but likely for very diverse reasons. Although the growing threat in England in the seventeenth century was antinomianism, Ussher faced the opposite problem among those opposed to Protestant doctrine.84 He continually emphasized that Adam was naturally capable of performing his duties under the law, and that Adam was made upright by nature and could fulfill the law. Beeke and Jones noted that many puritan authors spoke of grace in the covenant of works, although they rightly distinguished that grace had different meanings before and after the Fall; in keeping with their interest in puritan thought, however, all the theologians that Beeke and Jones cited were English.85 As a nuance to Beeke and Jones’ description, however, David Pareus (1548–​1622) denied there was grace in the covenant of works, and his context in Heidelberg, Germany, was also nearer to a major Roman Catholic presence than was England.86 It may be that the dominant threat to Reformed doctrine in territories of contested confessional identity affected how theologians expressed themselves concerning grace before the Fall. For example, Anthony Burgess (1600–​1664), a Westminster divine, wrote concerning this point: “I know there are some learned Divines, as Pareus, that doe deny the holinesse Adam had, or the help God gave Adam, to be truly and properly called grace; righteousnesse they will call it, and the gift of God, but not grace.”87 Burgess, however, dismissed Pareus’ view on this point, instead predominantly emphasizing Adam’s need for divine help. This supports the earlier contextual analysis regarding the differences between Ireland and England, especially since Pareus’ argument was against Catholic apologist Bellarmine.88 Two other theologians show that Ussher and Pareus’ view was not an uncommon feature of Reformed theology. Franciscus Junius (1545–​1602), whom Ussher recommended to divinity students, also took a similar stance on Adam’s nature, although the terminology of the covenant of works is missing from his passages on the subject.89 Junius explained, “Next, the image of God must be considered in a twofold way. First, in us according to 84 David R. Como, Blown by the Spirit:  Puritanism and the Emergence of an Antinomian Underground in Pre-​Civil-​War England (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004). 85 Beeke and Jones, Puritan Theology, 229–​30. 86 David Pareus, De Gratia Primi Hominis Explicatus and Castigatus (Heidelberg, 1612), 36–​67. 87 Anthony Burgess, Vindiciae Legis (1646), 113. 88 Burgess, Vindiciae Legis, 113–​14; Bellarmine, De Controversiis,  15–​42. 89 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 42v.

62  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works the law of creation, or our nature as it was first created by God, but then according to the law of renewal, namely the grace of God, as it is daily renewed in Christ, and he has obtained the highest perfection.”90 The crucial point here is that Junius equated grace with renewal, in contrast to the condition of human nature as it was created. Junius also made similar statements elsewhere about Adam’s ability to do good by nature: Man’s immediate condition had been, as they say, the freedom of choice, or the natural power for clinging to the good, which the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life symbolized. And these symbols thus stirred man to a consciousness of his immediate condition, in order to foreshadow each future in proportion to how man would have used that natural power and free will. Truly, man’s future would have been best, if he had attended to the tree of life.91

Junius also discussed this issue while refuting Jacob Arminius (1560–​1609) concerning reprobation, wherein Arminius proposed that God’s “non-​ election” was God’s will to bestow upon some people—​who, as objects of God’s predestination, were considered as fallen—​merely natural rather than supernatural happiness.92 Junius rejected this premise that God dealt with humanity as fallen, but argued instead that God considered them “indiscriminately” (communiter).93 Junius implicitly argued here for a supralapsarian understanding of predestination, wherein the order of God’s was described according to logical intention that entailed that God decreed the Fall logically subsequent to election and reprobation because they were prior in intent, which contrasted with the infralapsarian view, wherein the order of God’s was described according to the historical order of events as they occurred temporally. This issue of supra-​and infralapsarianism is addressed in Chapter 4, but the important point here is that this issue was the context

90 Francis Junius, Πρωτοκτισια (Heidelberg, 1589), 53 (Deinde imaginem Dei dupliciter considerari necesse est: Primum, in nobis secundum creationis legem, sive in natura nostra, ut primum, a Deo creata est: deinde vero secundum instaurationis legem, vel gratiam Dei, prout in Christo indies renovatur, & perfectionem summam adeptura est). 91 Francis Junius, Libri Genesos Analysis (Geneva 1594), 19 (Praesens hominis conditio fuit libertas (ut vocant) arbitrii, sive potentia naturalis adhaerendi bono, cuius symbolum arbor scientia, &c. Atque haec symbola sic hominem excitaverunt ad praesentis status conscientiam, ut de futuro quoque praemonerent, prout homo illa naturali potentia & libertate arbitrii usurus esset: Nempe bene futurum homini, si arborem vitae observaret). 92 Jacob Arminius, Amica cum D. Francisco Junio de Predestinatione (Leiden, 1613), 149. 93 Arminius, de Predestionatione, 150.

Content of the Covenant of Works  63 for Junius’ statements about human nature. He argued “concerning pure nature as was originally in Adam” that “indeed, pure nature had its own future natural happiness, although that future happiness was afterward to be engulfed in the supernatural happiness by God’s grace, so that we thus might say also that just as this [supernatural] happiness was pure humanity’s natural goal, it was also its natural end.”94 Junius’ point here provides important clarity regarding another of his statements: “Our nature’s goal—​the natural one—​is that it might approach near to God; its supernatural end is that it might be united with God. Adam was able to strive for the former by nature, but able to be exalted to the letter by that grace.”95 Within context, Junius clearly affirmed that God graciously added humanity’s supernatural end, but not that Adam needed grace in order to meet the terms of obtaining that end. Junius affirmed here that Adam could approach God by nature, which shows his view’s similarity to Ussher’s position that Adam did not need grace to meet the condition of the covenant.96 Indeed, Junius said that “nature is the foundation of the supernatural.”97 It was shown earlier that Ussher too rejected the sharp distinction between natural and supernatural ends; Junius’ view was not identical to Ussher’s doctrine of the covenant of works in every way, but it is not that different in the aspect under discussion here concerning how Adam did not need grace specifically in regards to meeting the terms of the covenant of works.98 The other theologian who shows that Ussher and Pareus’ view was not an uncommon feature of Reformed theology was Peter van Mastricht (1630–​ 1706), who also took issue with the donum superadditum by emphasizing Adam’s natural ability: The papists certainly acknowledge original righteousness, but only one that was a supernatural gift to man, not a natural one, as a certain kind of golden bridle conferred on man for restraining the fight between the flesh and the spirit, acknowledging it so that they might maintain that man’s natural 94 Arminius, de Predestionatione, 151 (Naturae enim integrae sua fuerat futura naturalis Felicitas, licet in supernaturali per Dei gratiam post absorbenda, ut ita loquamur: Atque haec foelicitas tamquam naturalis finis hominis integri, & illius extremum naturale fuit). 95 Arminius, de Predestinatione, 152 (Finis naturae nostrae, qua naturalis, hic est, ut proxime accedat Deum; supernaturalis est, ut homo adunetur Deo. Ad illum per naturam poterat Adam contendere: ad hunc per gratiam ab illo evehi). 96 Arminius, de Predestionatione, 151–​52. 97 Arminius, de Predestinatione, 152 (At duo spectari in causa hac oportuit; unum felicitatem naturalem esse praestructam supernaturali; alteram, substructam esse). 98 Cf. Fesko, Covenant of Works, ch. 3.

64  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works abilities, among which is free choice, which remains wounded by the fall of the first parents, and so that they likewise they may hold that the fight between the flesh and the spirit, or the desire of the flesh against the spirit, and thus, notwithstanding that fight, man in this life can be morally perfect. They state that original sin does not consist in anything except the privation of original righteousness, through which the spirit, in its fight against the flesh is deprived of the assistance of original righteousness, contracted a feebleness, whereby it could repress the assault of the flesh, albeit not so promptly and blessedly.99

Mastricht clearly associated the idea of a supernatural gift of righteousness to Adam with Roman Catholicism. These examples show that the emphasis on the integrity of Adam’s nature, with no need for grace or supernatural gifts, was a regular idea for Reformed theologians. Regardless of how the gift of supernatural life with God was expressed, there was agreement that Adam could do what he was supposed to do with his natural powers. There were, of course, various medieval constructions of the donum superadditum, which complicates this discussion. The more Pelagianizing version taught that not only did Adam need the original righteousness to be added supernaturally to his nature, but he also had to earn that addition through a first act of merit. This of course was the foundation for Gabriel Biel’s understanding of the Franciscan Pactum, which taught that God does not deny grace to those who cooperate with what is in them.100 Thomas Aquinas (1225–​1274), however, had explicitly rejected this view of the donum wherein the original righteousness must be earned by a first act of human merit.101 Thomas, as well as the other Augustinians, “insisted that the donum was part of the original constitution of the human being and not a gift given on the basis of an initial probation”; this was markedly different 99 Peter van Mastricht, Theoretico-​Practica Theologia (1698), 4.2.26 (Pontificii, justitiam quidem agnoscunt originalem; sed quae homini fuerit, non naturalis; sed donum supernaturale, velut fraenum quoddam aureum, compescendae pugnae inter carnem & spiritum, homini naturali, collatum: ut obtineant, hominis naturalia, inter quae est liberum arbitrium, a lapsu protoplastorum, illaesa mansisse: ut item habeant, pugnam istam inter carnem & spiritum, seu concupiscentiam carnis adversus spiritum, adeoque, ea non obstante, hominem in hac vita, moraliter perfectum esse posse; statuunt peccatum originale, non consistere nisi in privatione justitiae originalis, per quam spiritus in pugna cum carne, adjutorio justitiae originalis destitutus, languorem contraxerit, quo non ita promte & feliciter, possit reprimere insultus carnis). Thanks to Todd Rester particularly for pointing me to this passage. 100 Heiko Augustinus Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1983), 128–​45. 101 ST, 1a.95.1; 1a2ae.109.1–​2.

Content of the Covenant of Works  65 than the nominalist versions of this doctrine.102 For Aquinas, the donum was the donum concreatum, and his view was closer to the later Reformed view than the other, more Pelagian articulations of this doctrine, which is a point important enough on its own as the medieval precursors of Reformed doctrine are considered. That point still does not mean that Thomas’ view was identical to the Reformed teaching, even if it was the closer medieval view. It seems, as the evidence from Ussher’s works cited in the section “Beginning with the First Adam” should show, that Ussher at least wanted to remove any notion that this donum was superadded to human nature at all, regardless of whether it was added before or after human achievement. He wanted to assert that original righteousness was part and parcel of the original creation of man, and that the two could not be separated apart from sin. Ussher’s concern to refute Roman apologists led him to pare down any reference to grace in the covenant of works, which mirrored Pareus’ intent.103 This shared concern is marked by Ussher’s recommendation of one tome from Pareus’ multi-​volume refutation of Bellarmine.104 It seems that Ussher and Pareus, Reformed theologians faced with a proximate Catholic enemy, were both concerned not to call any help that God did give to Adam “grace” and not to imply that it was a form of righteousness that Adam lacked by nature.105 As demonstrated, this was not irregular in the Reformed tradition, but Ussher and Pareus set their rejection of the donum superadditum within the language of the covenant of works. Muller has also drawn a connection between the Reformed approach that articulated grace in the prelapsarian state and the concept of the donum superadditum.106 He argued that the concern to indicate the creature’s dependence on God for reward stood behind both the doctrine of the donum and the covenant of works. On the other hand, the Reformed solution to the issue of incongruency between the creature’s works and the potential reward was not to suggest the need for superadded grace to merit that reward, but to articulate that the reward could be granted on the basis of creaturely works because God had made a covenant to that end.107 It has been shown that Ussher was pointedly concerned to refute Roman notions of the donum, and, since the Reformed 102 Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law,” 184. 103 Pareus, De Gratia,  46–​54. 104 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 42r; David Pareus, Roberti Bellarmini Politiani Societatis Jesu Theologi Cardinalis De justificatione impij Libri V (Heidelberg, 1615). 105 Contra Bellarmine, De Controversiis, 15. 106 Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law,” 183. 107 Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law,” 183–​85.

66  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works generally used the covenant of works to address the same issues involved in the donum, it should not be surprising that Ussher articulated his formulation of the covenant of works precisely to exclude all vestiges of the donum, which entailed excluding grace language for the prelapsarian context. Ussher taught that the terms of the covenant required Adam to perform fully every aspect of the natural law. This law of nature was the backdrop for theologians who argued that the law given at creation and at Sinai corresponded.108 The belief in natural law is a contextual factor that made this correspondence rational in the early modern context.109 Intellectual historians should not impute irrationality or anachronism to this view simply because they do not share that presupposition.110 The preceding considerations about natural law draw attention to Ussher’s intellectualist construction of the covenant of works. He placed a heavy emphasis on nature. The implication of this priority is that God made the world in a way that determined how the covenant of works functioned. The covenant’s function corresponded to nature, rather than being arbitrarily added as an afterthought to creation. Voluntarists argued that the terms of the covenant and the role of the law were essentially arbitrary.111 Ussher, on the other hand, grounded his covenantal categories in the stability of nature, which was created to endow humans with everything they needed to fulfill their relationship with God. This stability of nature also came with the law that set the terms of the covenant of works. The terms of the covenant, therefore, were not arbitrary but flowed logically from creation. This intellectualist orientation places Ussher in the tradition of Thomas Aquinas.112 Ussher did recommend that divinity students read Thomas, which indicates he actually engaged with, or at least respected, him.113 Many 108 Stephen J. Casselli, Divine Rule Maintained: Anthony Burgess, Covenant Theology, and the Place of the Law in Reformed Scholasticism (Grand Rapids, MI: RHB, 2016), 47–​53. 109 Willis, Reformation of the Decalogue,  20–​28. 110 Quentin Skinner, “Interpretation, Rationality and Truth,” in Visions of Politics, Volume 1: Regarding Method (Cambridge: CUP, 2002), 27–​56. 111 E.g., WWP 1:32. 112 Thomas Williams, “Human Freedom and Agency,” in Oxford Handbook of Aquinas, 203–​4; Jeffrey Hause, “Thomas Aquinas and the Voluntarists,” MPT 6 (1997): 167–​82. 113 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 42v. There is a heading on this page reading “These are disliked or not so well approved of.” Ussher certainly would have rejected the first works named in this section. As the list continues though, it seems to drift to authors that Ussher would have at least cautiously appropriated, such as Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, Martin Luther, and Phillip Melanchthon. Thomas was mentioned in nearer proximity to these names than to those such as John Mair (1467–​1550), who would have been totally objectionable. Furthermore, Ussher’s strongest urging was to “read no Jesuits at all,” but Thomas was Dominican. Ussher explicitly cited Thomas approvingly on at least two occasions:  Ussher, Answer, 494–​95; Correspondence of James Ussher,

Content of the Covenant of Works  67 themes from Aquinas’s works made the Thomist tradition the obvious choice for Ussher’s doctrinal platform. Both theologians saw the entire theological endeavor as a discipline of wisdom. Thomas wrote, “Hence, although among the philosophical sciences one is speculative and another practical, nevertheless sacred doctrine includes both; as God, by one and the same science knows both Himself and His works. Still, it is speculative rather than practical, because it is more concerned with divine things than with human acts.”114 Elsewhere he argued, “The act of faith is related both to the object of the will, i.e. to the good and the end, and to the object of the intellect, i.e. to the true.”115 Ussher held this sapiential view of theology as well, as he stated in 1607: “This, therefore, is the wisdom which we call theology, and that we are able to define rightly the Wisdom of Religion we rely only on the divine revelation.”116 Again, “wisdom is also Christian prudence.”117 He elsewhere wrote that to know Christ is “not a bare contemplative knowledge, but a thankfull acknowledging, which comprehendeth all Christian duties, consisting in faith and obedience; for hee that being void of the feare of God, which is the beginning and chiefe point of knowledge, Prov. 1.7. abideth not in God, but sinneth: dwelleth in darknesse, who hath neither seen God, nor known him, I Joh. 3.6.” He then wrote, “What doe you call the Doctrine which sheweth the way unto everlasting life and happinesse? It is commonly termed Theology or Divinity, and the familiar Declaration of the principles thereof (for the use of the ignorant) is called Catechising, Heb. 5.12.,13,14. I Tim. 6.1, 2.”118 The proximate source for Ussher’s reception of this Thomist understanding was likely Franciscus Junius, whose “notes” he recommended to divinity students.119 Junius wrote, “Theology is wisdom about divine things.”120 He argued that theology combines theoretical and practical aspects, a position that he drew

1:142–​43 (letter to Ezekiel Culverwell, dated March 3, 1618). For evidence this letter was written to Culverwell, see Correspondence of James Ussher, 1:157. 114 ST, 1a.1.4. 115 ST, 2a2ae.4.1. 116 UW 14:386 (Haec igitur sapientia quam Theologiam appellamus, et quam Sapientiam Religionis recte definire possumus sola divina revelatione nititur) (emphasis added). 117 UW 14:386 (SAPIENTIAE est et prudentiae Christianae). 118 Ussher, Body of Divinitie,  3–​4. 119 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 42r. The work most likely meant by “Junius & Tremelius’s notes” is Biblia Sacra, Sive Testamentum Vetus, ab Im[manuel] Tremellio et Fr[ancis] Junio ex Hebraeo Latinè redditum (Amsterdam, 1634). 120 Francis Junius, Opera theologica, 2 vols. ([Heidelberg], 1608), 1:1376 (Theologia, est sapientia rerum divinarum). (Page numbers 1375–​1376 mistakenly repeat in this edition. The references come from the second set of 1375–​1376.)

68  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works from some medieval thinkers.121 Standing in the tradition that includes Thomas and Junius, Ussher perceived the mind and will to be active faculties for the discipline of theology, making it a discipline of wisdom (sapientia).122 This view contrasts both with other early modern views that said theology was either wholly practical (praxis) or wholly theoretical (scientia).123 The view of theology as wisdom, however, emphasizes that theological inferences can be gathered from revelation in nature, as is partly the case in Ussher’s covenant of works.124 Again, Ussher’s view of nature highlighted that it was God’s natural law, thereby making it in a way revelatory, but natural insights could still be gathered from it.125 In Thomas’ scheme and later Protestantism, special revelation in Scripture was still necessary over and above general revelation, but that does not change that God genuinely used nature to reveal himself.126 Still, theology as wisdom is only the first foundational premise that made Thomism most compatible with Ussher’s thought. Of the medieval metaphysical outlooks, Thomas’ doctrine of analogy was likely most compatible with the intellectualist position and was definitely adopted by many Reformed thinkers, whether intellectualist or voluntarist.127 In contrast to Scotism and nominalism, the doctrine of analogy maintained some real relationship between Creator and creature without viewing that relationship either “purely univocally or purely equivocally.”128

121 Willem J. van Asselt, “Fundamental Meaning of Theology,” WTJ 64 (2002): 325–​27. 122 Junius, however, drew other aspects of his theology from the Scotist tradition, which simply indicates Reformed theologians were eclectic in their appropriation of philosophical categories; PRRD 1:227–​34. 123 DLGTT, “scientia,” 323–​24; Guilielmum Amesium, Medulla of S.S. Theologiae ex Sacris literi (1629), 1; William Perkins, A Golden Chaine (1623), 11. 124 Gregory F. LaNave, “God, Creation, and the Possibility of Philosophical Wisdom:  The Perspectives of Bonaventure and Aquinas,” TS 69 (2008): 812–​33. 125 SCG, 1.3.2; David B. Burrell, “Analogy, Creation, and Theological Language,” in Rik van Nieuwenhove and Jospeh Wawrykow (eds.), The Theology of Thomas Aquinas (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005), 79–​83; Grabill, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics,  70–​97. 126 ST, 1a.1.1; PRRD 1: 270–​310. 127 Hampton, Anti-​Arminians, 231–​37; Richard A. Muller, “Not a Scotist:  Understandings of Being, Univocity, and Analogy in Early-​Modern Reformed Thought,” RRR 14, no. 2 (2012): 127–​ 50; Richard A. Muller, “Calvinist Thomism Revisited: William Ames (1576–​1633) and the Divine Ideas,” in Kathleen M. Comerford, Gary W. Jenkins, and W. J. Torrance Kirby (eds.), From Rome to Zurich, Between Ignatius and Vermigli: Essays in Honor of John Patrick Donnelly, SJ (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 105–​17; ST, 1.13.3–​12; SCG 1.32–​35; Davies, Aquinas’s Summa, 63–​71; Gyula Klima, “Theory of Language,” in Oxford Handbook of Aquinas, 379–​86; John F. Wippel, “Metaphysics,” in Norma Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas (New  York:  CUP, 1993), 89–​99; Ralph McInerny, Aquinas and Analogy (Washington, DC:  Catholic University of America Press, 1996). 128 Rik van Nieuwenhove, An Introduction to Medieval Theology (Cambridge: CUP, 2012), 232–​ 35; Wippel, “Metaphysics,” 89; Colmán ó Huallacháin, “Duns Scotus and 13th Century Philosophy,”

Content of the Covenant of Works  69 Thomas’ analogical metaphysic applied to the Creator-​creature relationship in addition to linguistics.129 Thomas rejected equivocal metaphysics, but instead posited analogical language that, in avoiding univocity, made meaningful discussion about God possible without undermining the Creator-​creature distinction.130 Thomas clearly disavowed univocal notions in several ways, primarily through his doctrine of creation ex nihilo and by advocating that God is not a genus.131 He affirmed that God made the creatures out of nothing, which meant that the creatures did not derive being from God’s essence in a univocal way.132 When he discussed emanation and participation, therefore, it was not strictly the same notion as the chain of being in Platonism or Neo-​Platonism.133 On the contrary, Thomas outright rejected the chain of being and modified the notion of emanation that he took from pagan philosophers to cohere with the Christian doctrine of creation.134 His affirmation that God created the creatures out of nothing meant they were not univocally sharers in God’s being, which is why he said terms cannot mean entirely the same thing when applied to God and creatures.135 This point concerning creation is further underscored by Thomas’ affirmation that God does not have genus; instead, unlike creatures, his being and existence are identical.136 This point underscores God’s otherness from the world.137 Thomas was obviously trying to steer clear of univocity and

University Review 1, no. 10 (Autumn 1956): 30–​43; George Lindbeck, “Nominalism and the Problem of Meaning as Illustrated by Pierre D’Ailly on Predestination and Justification,” HTR 52, no. 1 (1959): 43–​60; William J. Courternay, “The King and the Leaden Coin: The Economic Background of ‘Sine Qua Non’ Causality,” Traditio 28 (1972): 185–​209; William J. Courternay, “Nominalism and Late Medieval Thought: A Bibliographical Essay,” TS 33, no. 4 (1972): 716–​34; Steinmetz, “Late Medieval Nominalism and the ‘Clerk’s Tale,’ ” 38–​54; Jeffrey Combs, “The Possibility of Created Entities in Seventeenth-​Century Scotism,” Philosophical Quarterly 43, no. 173 (October 1993): 447–​59. 129 SCG, 1.34; ST, 1a.14.1; Michael Allen, Sanctification (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 57; Klima, “Theory of Language,” 379–​86. 130 E. Jennifer Ashworth, “Analogy and Metaphor from Thomas Aquinas to Duns Scotus and Walter Burley,” in Charles Bolyard and Rondo Keele (eds.), Later Medieval Metaphysics: Ontology, Language, and Logic (New York: Fordham University Press, 2013), 223–​36. 131 ST, 1.3.5, 1.4.1–​3, 1.45.5, 1.65.3; Kathryn Tanner, “Creation,” in Cambridge Companion to the Summa Theologiae, 142–​55; Davies, Aquinas’s Summa, 51–​53, 124–​25. 132 ST, 1a.45.1–​2. 133 Richard A. Muller, “The Dogmatic Function of St. Thomas’ ‘Proofs’: A Protestant Appreciation,” Fides et Historia 24 (1992): 15–​29; John F. Wippel, “Being,” in Oxford Handbook of Aquinas, 81–​82; Davies, Aquinas’s Summa, 34–​50. 134 ST, 1a.65.3; Tanner, “Creation,” 124–​25. 135 Brian Davies, “The Limits of Language and the Notion of Analogy,” in Oxford Handbook of Aquinas, 390–​97; Burrell, “Analogy, Creation, and Theological Language,” 77–​98. 136 ST, 1a.3.4–​5. 137 Tanner, “Creation,” 142–​55; Wippel, “Being,” 79–​81.

70  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works equivocity to preserve a proper understanding of God.138 His understanding of divine and human ontology as analogical posited a real relationship between the Creator and creature but still distinguished them.139 Although Thomas’ view may not be entirely identical to later Protestant constructions of analogy, it was certainly a precursor.140 This explanation of Thomas’ doctrine of analogy does still need to be connected back to Ussher’s use of natural law. Stephen Hampton’s persuasive argument that post-​Restoration Reformed conformists were predominantly Thomists on the doctrine of God contained a useful summary of how this understanding of God connects to notions of nature: “God’s being is shrouded in mystery, and infinitely different from all the things which human beings can understand. Since we cannot approach God directly, through the means of our senses, we must proceed by deduction from the things we can sense, namely other created beings like ourselves.”141 Because of the analogical distinction, there was room for a robust view of nature. As Ussher himself explained this idea in the relation to God’s communicable attributes: “The God-​Essence is spirit, appearing in Hebrew as Yahweh. Yet, God is one only, and he truly is incomprehensible, not only in essence, but also in every attribute, such as wisdom, holiness, power, and glory. (The first two have an analogy with the internal good of humans, the following two with the external good of humans.)”142 The distinction and yet correspondence between Creator and creature was the crucial point. Nature could have its own legitimate structure, first because it was not derivative of divine being, as 138 Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum Super Libros Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi Episcopi Parisiensis, ed. R. P. Mandonnet (Paris, 1929), 491–​94. 139 Jack Kilcrease, “Johann Gerhard’s Reception of Thomas Aquinas’s Analogia Entis,” in Manfred Svensson and David VanDrunen (eds.), Aquinas Among the Protestants (Hoboken, NJ:  Wiley Blackwell, 2018), 116–​23; Giorgio Pini, “The Development of Aquinas’s Thought,” in Oxford Handbook of Aquinas, 499–​501; Davies, Aquinas’s Summa, 66; Klima, “Theory of Language,” 382–​ 85; contra Barth, Church Dogmatics, I/​1:xiii, 238–​40, 437; II/​1:80–​83. The problem with Barth’s reading of analogy that is relevant here is that he conflated Thomas’ view of the analogia entis with other modern Roman Catholic versions of the doctrine that he was refuting; Bruce L. McCormack, “Karl Barth’s Version of an ‘Analogy of Being’: A Dialectical No and Yes to Roman Catholicism,” in Thomas Jospeh White (ed.), The Analogy of Being: Invention of the Antichrist or Wisdom of God? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 88–​146; Keith L. Johnson, Karl Barth and the Analogia Entis (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 68–​82; R. Michael Allen, Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics: An Introduction and Reader (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 65–​66 n. 11. 140 Robert LaRocca, “Cornelius Van Til’s Rejection and Appropriation of Thomistic Metaphysics,” ThM thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, 2012. 141 Hampton, Anti-​Arminians, 228. 142 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 34r–​34v (emphasis added; Essentia Deus est Spiritus existens hebraicè ‫ יְהוה‬est autem Deus tant um unus, idem vero est incomprehensibilis cum essentia tum omnibus attributis ut sapientia sanctitate potentiâ et gloriâ: (Duo prima analogiam habent cum hominum bonis internis, duo reliqua cum externis)).

Content of the Covenant of Works  71 philosophical univocity required, and second because it insisted on the work of God in ordering the world in a particular way.143 The real although distinct relationship between Creator and creature and the space for a robust natural order would incline those who held intellectualist presuppositions toward this view, or vice versa. Analogy and intellectualism fit well together, even if they were not entailed or required by the other.144 Thus, Thomas’ doctrine of analogy also corresponded well with Ussher’s intellectualist proclivities, and all the underlying premises of theology as wisdom and the doctrine of analogy fit well with his strong emphasis on the integrity of nature. Ussher never fully outlined his metaphysics, but his descriptions of the Creator-​ creature distinction seem most in line with analogy, especially concerning anthropomorphic language.145 He recommended students use Jerome Zanchi’s De Religione Christiana Fides, which briefly touches the Thomistic doctrine of analogy that Zanchi more fully outlined in his larger work, De Natura Dei.146 This connection between Thomas, Zanchi, and Ussher on the doctrine of analogy serves to underline the Reformed aspect of Reformed conformity.147 Ussher certainly made use of Thomas’ cosmological argument for God’s existence.148 Additionally, the way that was earlier discussed in which Ussher bound the commands of the Decalogue inseparably together as part of natural law certainly placed him in line with Thomas and separated him from Scotist natural law theory, which suggested that only the first two commandments were unchangeable.149 Ussher’s explanation of instances where God commanded something that seemed contrary to the law very 143 Pini, “Development of Aquinas’s Thought,” 499–​501; Kilcrease, “Analogia Entis,” 116–​18; Sven Grosse, “The Understanding and Critique of Thomas Aquinas in Contemporary German Protestant Theology,” in Aquinas Among the Protestants, 155–​61. 144 Muller, “Calvinist Thomism Revisited,” 105–​17. 145 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 34r; Ussher, Body of Divinitie,  27–​60. 146 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 41v; Hieronymi Zanchi, De Religione Christiana Fides (1605), 66–​68; Hieronymi Zanchi, De Natura Dei (Heidelberg, 1577), 12–​19, 61–​87; SCG I.32–​35; Muller, “Not a Scotist,” 131; Stefan Lindholm, “Jerome Zanchi’s Use of Thomas Aquinas,” in Aquinas Among the Protestants,  79–​80. 147 Harm Gormis, “Thomism in Zanchi’s Doctrine of God,” in Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker (eds.), Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 121–​40; Hampton, Anti-​Arminians, 221–​65. 148 “For scire, est per causas scire [to know is to know through casues]: now there is no Cause of God, no Causes of Gods Beinge,” CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 4r (sermon on Job 11:7–​8, dated February 14, 1640 [1641]); “This is the ground of naturall Philosophy that as God is the first cause of all so he doth concurre to the produceing of everie Act more immediately then any second Cause,” Bodl. MS Eng. th.e. 25, fol. 32r (sermon on Hebrews 9:14, dated 1625); cf. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 31–​32; ST, 1a.2.3. 149 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 23v–​24r (sermon on Genesis 3:2–​6, dated July 10, 1642); ST, 1a2ae.100.1, 3; Davies, Aquinas’s Summa, 212–​22; Michael Baur, “Law and Natural Law,” in Oxford Handbook of Aquinas, 244–​48; Möhle, “Scotus’s Theory of Natural Law,” 315–​16.

72  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works closely resembled that of Thomas.150 Further, Thomas’ natural law reflected the eternal law, which was God’s character, and so both Thomas’ and Ussher’s views of natural law had the function of revealing truth about God.151 Both taught that there was disproportion between any work a person could do and any reward God might give for that work.152 Ussher leaned most toward Thomas’ natural law theory, in contrast to Ockhamist radical voluntarism or Scotist theory of a somewhat mutable natural law.153 Significantly, Ussher’s view was similar to that of Anthony Burgess, and Stephen Casselli has argued that the Westminster Confession appropriated Burgess’ view.154 These connections between Ussher and Thomas should not be surprising.155 Richard Hooker made use of Thomas’ natural law, and Ussher selectively gleaned from Hooker’s theology.156 Zanchi was a Protestant Thomist, and Ussher cited him explicitly and repeatedly in his Oxford lectures.157 Carl Trueman argued that other aspects of Thomas’ thought were forerunners of Reformed orthodoxy.158 Strikingly, Ussher used modified aspects of the Thomist tradition to argue against Thomas’ other ideas, such as Adam’s need for grace prior to the Fall.159 The intellectualist paradigm enabled him to ground the covenant of works in the way that nature was intended to be, and he was therefore able to maneuver his view of nature away from Catholic 150 Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 92–​93; ST, 1a2ae.94.5. 151 ST, 1a2ae.93.1–​2; Paul Helm, “Nature and Grace,” in Aquinas Among the Protestants, 230–​31, 243–​44; Davies, Aquinas’s Summa, 214–​16; Baur, “Law and Natural Law,” 244–​47. 152 ST, 1a2ae.114.1; CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 21r (sermon on Genesis 3:1, dated July 3, 1642). 153 ST, 1a2ae.94.5; A. S. McGrade, “Natural Law and Moral Omnipotence,” in Paul Vincent Spade (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ockham (Cambridge: CUP, 1999), 273–​301; Möhle, “Scotus’s Theory of Natural Law,” 315–​16; Francis Oakley, “Medieval Theories of Natural Law:  William of Ockham and the Significance of the Voluntarist Tradition,” Natural Law Forum (1960): 68–​72. 154 Casselli, Divine Rule Maintained, 45–​61; Helm, “Nature and Grace,” 237. 155 Richard A. Muller, Divine Will and Human Choice: Freedom, Contingency, and Necessity in Early Modern Reformed Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017), 317–​22; Muller, “Calvinist Thomism Revisited,” 103–​20; Christoph Schwöbel, “Reformed Traditions,” in Philip McCosker and Denys Turner (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to the Summa Theologiae (Cambridge: CUP, 2016), 322–​32. 156 Torrance Kirby, “Richard Hooker and Thomas Aquinas on Defining Law,” in Aquinas Among the Protestants, 94–​107; Richard Snoddy, The Soteriology of James Ussher: The Act and Object of Saving Faith (New York: OUP, 2014), 67–​78. 157 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 32v–​33v, 41v; Lindholm, “Zanchi’s Use of Thomas,” 75–​88. He cited Jerome Zanchi, De Scriptura Sacra (Heidelberg, 1593); Jerome Zanchi, De Tribus Elohim (Frankfurt, 1573); Jerome Zanchi, Ad Cuiusdam Ariani Libellum (Neustadt, 1586), 8–​15; Jerome Zanchi, De Operibus Dei Intra Spacium Sex Dierum Creatis Opus (Neustadt, 1591); Zanchi, De Religione Christiana Fides. 158 Trueman, Grace Alone, 91–​110. 159 ST, 1a2ae.109.1; CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 21r (sermon on Genesis 3:1, dated July 3, 1642), 27v (sermon on Genesis 6:5, dated July 31, 1642); Irish Articles, sig. B3r (article 23), sig. B2v (article 21); Ussher, Principles (1653), 7, 10–​12, 69; Body of Divinitie, 104–​5, 115–​66, 124–​25. This is discussed more in Chapter 3.

Content of the Covenant of Works  73 paradigms that included the donum superadditum, which argued that original righteousness was not constitutive of Adam’s nature.160 The terms of the covenant of works provide a fruitful window into the underlying premises of Ussher’s theology and his reception of ideas from the earlier Christian tradition. The terms reveal several aspects worth summarizing. Adam had to render perfect righteousness, and natural law played an important role in defining the covenant. The strength of nature without the need for grace in the original state was an important feature of creation that Ussher used to push back against Roman Catholic ideas. Finally, Ussher’s emphasis on nature again intersects with his intellectualism, which has the complementary features of understanding theology as a sapiential discipline and the doctrine of analogy. The terms of the covenant, therefore, say a lot about Ussher’s understanding of the broader world and even metaphysics, all highlighting how he reshaped traditional theological ideas into the doctrine of the covenant of works.

The Reward and Penalty of the Covenant Clearly, Ussher perceived Adam to be in a covenantal relationship with God, which prioritized the law and the stipulated conditions of obedience. The terms of the covenant, however, were present because there was a reward offered for Adam’s obedience, and if he had met those terms, he would have been given a reward. This section shows that Ussher’s use of covenant is significant not only because it helps explain what God expected of humanity in the original state but also because it sheds light on what God intended humanity to become. God introduced a covenant with Adam because he did not want people to stay in the same condition in which they were created; he desired that they reach a higher and unalterable state of consummation. The covenant of works provided the means and direction for how Adam could bring the human race to that higher condition. Not everyone in the seventeenth century described the reward of the covenant of works in the same way. Mark Herzer outlined disagreements between Reformed theologians about whether Adam’s reward would have been



160

DLGTT, “donum concreatum,” 97–​98, “donum superadditum,” 98–​99.

74  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works entrance into heaven or permanent life on earth.161 He highlighted Francis Turretin’s (1623–​1687) argument that there was consensus that Adam was not simply promised ongoing earthly life but was promised the prospect of “a heavenly and eternal life.”162 Thomas Goodwin shows that this consensus was not so settled, as he argued that the reward for Adam’s obedience would have been sustained existence in the created condition. Herzer clarified that the debate centered not upon whether Adam would have been awarded life but upon whether that life was earthly or heavenly. The debate was not merely scholastic hairsplitting because it included presuppositions and arguments about the relationship between nature and grace. Goodwin argued that Adam had “pure nature,” which meant there was no need for “extra grace” in the covenant of nature.163 His “sharp distinction between nature and grace” is the reason the first Adam would have earned only sustained earthly/​natural life but the second Adam, Christ, earned a heavenly life.164 According to Herzer, in Goodwin’s scheme, Adam would have been justified in the covenant of nature, but this was simply a “natural” justification of the fact that he obeyed. Adam’s justification simply confirmed and secured for him the condition in which he was created. Turretin, on the other hand, argued that there was a strict parallel between whatever the reward would have been for Adam and the reward that Christ achieved. If Christ achieved eternal heavenly life, it follows that Adam could have attained this same type of life.165 Citing Mark Beach, Herzer placed Ussher in agreement with Goodwin that Adam’s reward would have been secured natural life in paradise.166 Both authors depend upon the phrase “The reward of blessednesse and everlasting life, Levit. 18.5. Luke 10:28” from Ussher’s Body of Divinitie as their solitary evidence to support their view, but this quote is far from decisive. In Ussher’s understanding, the form of a covenant by definition indicated that there is a further reward to be gained from it. He defined covenant as “an agreement which it pleaseth Almighty God to enter into with man concerning his everlasting condition.”167 Any covenant between God and man, 161 Mark A. Herzer, “Adam’s Reward: Heaven or Earth?,” in Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (eds.), Drawn into Controversie:  Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-​ Century British Puritanism (Göttingen: V&R, 2011), 162–​82. 162 Herzer, “Adam’s Reward,” 162, citing Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1992–​97), 8.6.3. 163 Herzer, “Adam’s Reward,” 172. 164 Herzer, “Adam’s Reward,” 167. 165 Herzer, “Adam’s Reward,” 166–​69. 166 Herzer, “Adam’s Reward,” 177. 167 Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 123.

Content of the Covenant of Works  75 therefore, was not simply meant to maintain current affairs, but was in place to provide a way to bring about an eternal state of affairs. This shows that Ussher understood there to be a clear connection between covenant and eschatology, in that a covenant was the means God established to achieve eschatological purposes. This definition of covenant was not unique to Ussher, for William Perkins defined it the same way: “Gods covenant, is his contract with man, concerning obtaining life eternall, upon a certaine condition.”168 Perkins used this definition only in reference to his discussion of the covenant of grace, but Ussher altered the position of this definition to apply to both the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. This definition corresponds to the way Ussher speaks of the first covenant elsewhere: “Q. What did God promise unto Man, if he did keep his Commandements? A. The continuance of his favour and everlasting life.”169 This marks a consistent pattern of thought that endured throughout Ussher’s career in which the two-​covenant model, which was at least partially inspired by Perkins, supported his view that there was a higher state for people to attain in eternity, and that would be brought about by a federal representative.170 Although the doctrine of justification is typically associated most with Protestant soteriology, Ussher tied it to the eschatological dimension of the covenant of works in a more integrated way than some of his forebears. He did not consider justification to be an ad hoc doctrine that came in once sin had to be penalized. Instead, justification was always the sought declaration for humankind. People were made in such a way that it was necessary for them to fulfill a requirement of righteousness. Although Adam was made good and upright, God still obligated him to reach the consummate declaration of righteousness—​namely, justification. Most significantly, justification in Ussher’s thought was by faith alone only after the Fall. Prior to the entrance of sin, Adam was fully capable of receiving the righteous status by works. Ussher argued in a 1642 sermon on the “covenant of law” that “in the first Covenant, If thou canst do that the Law commands, thou shalt be iustified by the Law. 10 Rom. 5. Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the man w[hi]ch doth these things, shall live thereby.”171 This quote, which explicitly names “the first Covenant,” reveals that Ussher saw 168 WWP 1:32. 169 Ussher, Principle (1653), 10. 170 Queen’s College, Oxford, MS 217, fol. 42r. 171 CUL Mm.6.55, fol. 21v (sermon on Genesis 3:1, dated July 3, 1642). Note “canst” is simply archaic second singular “can.”

76  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works an eschatological reward attached to the law at creation, but the citation of Romans 10:5 indicates this was an abiding principle. Perkins made the same point regarding the remaining uses of the law in his commentary on Galatians: “The Lord since mans fall, repeats the law in his old tenour, not to mocke men, but for other weightie causes. The first is to teach us, that the law is of a constant and unchangeable nature. The second is, to advertise us of our weaknesse, and to show us what we cannot doe.”172 Twisse also made this point.173 Reformed theologians, therefore, widely held that the law principle of obtaining the reward offered to Adam was not abrogated simply because of the Fall.174 As Perkins wrote, “Thus no one ever fulfilled the Law, but Christ and Adam before his fall.”175 Even though the law remained as a method of inheritance, it is not a viable method because sin prevents people from meeting the condition of perfect righteousness.176 This view of justification, in which the demands of that law were fulfilled by a representative figure, did not introduce a “moralising effect.”177 Most seventeenth-​century concerns about the imputation of active obedience were that it would encourage antinomianism. For example, Thomas Gataker (1574–​1654), a friend of Ussher and a divine at the Westminster Assembly who made several speeches concerning justification, argued that justification consisted only in recognizing the remission of sins.178 He referred to the transfer of Christ’s active obedience to the believer in addition to the forgiveness of sins as “a needles[s]‌twofold act,” because justification as acquittal is sufficiently opposite of incrimination. In contrast to Ussher, who advocated that justification would occur upon the positive fulfillment of the law, Gataker taught that someone would be justified “when he stands upon his own innocencie, and maintains his own faultlesnes and integritie, against 172 WWP 2:237. 173 William Twisse, A Briefe Catechetical Exposition of Christian Doctrine (1633), 3–​4. 174 Contrast this with the views of famous covenant theologian Johannes Cocceius, Summa Doctrinae de Foedere et Testamento Dei (Leiden, 1654). See W. J. van Asselt, “The Doctrine of Abrogations in the Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–​1669),” CTJ 29 (1994): 101–​16; W. J. van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–​1669), trans. Raymond A. Blacketer (Leiden: Brill, 2001); W. J. van Asselt, “Expromissio or Fideiusso? A Seventeenth-​Century Theological Debate Between the Voetians and Coccieans About the Nature of Christ’s Suretyship in Salvation History,” MAJT 14 (2003): 37–​57; W. J. van Asselt, “Christ, Predestination, and Covenant,” in Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 222–​25; J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant:  Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace (Göttingen: V&R, 2007), 272–​98. 175 WWP 2:234. 176 Ussher, Principles (1653), 11–12; Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 145; Twisse, Briefe Catechetical Exposition, 4. 177 Contra Torrance, Scottish Theology, 144. 178 Ford, Ussher, 253.

Content of the Covenant of Works  77 such as charge him with ought amisse.”179 These arguments essentially match what he said concerning justification at the Westminster Assembly.180 Whereas imputative views posed justification as a constitutive act, wherein God creates the righteous status by remitting sins and imputing Christ’s active obedience, Gataker’s view took a more analytical approach. By no means did he take the Roman Catholic analytical approach in which God assesses growth in inherent righteousness for justification, but he still advocated an analytical “work of Justice” that takes account of a prior act of remission of sins, and clearly one of his concerns was to maintain the Christian’s obligation to keep the law.181 Tellingly, he rejected the idea of a covenant with Adam, which may have been one reason he saw no need for the imputation of Christ’s active obedience.182 Yet his rejection of that doctrine was not because he feared it produced legalism; rather, he was more worried about antinomianism. Ussher’s eschatological dimension of the covenant draws attention to two other important points. First, rewards that God grants to people are distributed on the basis of covenantal principles, which makes covenant crucial if people are to experience blessing in their relationship with God. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) precisely formulated this same idea: “The distance between God and the Creature is so great, that although reasonable Creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their Blessednesse and Reward, but by some voluntary condescension on Gods part, which he hath been pleased to expresse by way of covenant.”183 Yet the idea of a higher blessed state above that of the creation order was not original to post-​Reformation covenantal thinkers. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “Man was happy in paradise, but not with that perfect happiness to which he was destined, which consists in the vision of the Divine Essence.”184 Regarding how Adam was created in a state of innocence, he commented, “We must, therefore, observe that man, by his nature, is established, as it were, midway between corruptible and incorruptible creatures, his soul being naturally incorruptible, while his body is naturally corruptible.”185 Thomas also believed that there was a higher state for

179

Thomas Gataker, An Antidote Against Errour Concerning Justification (1679), 19–​20. MPWA, 2:43–​45 (session 46, on September 5, 1643). 181 Gataker, Antidote, 23, 28, 30; Thomas Gataker, Antinomianism Discovered and Confuted (1652). 182 MPWA, 2:57 (session 47, on September 6, 1643). 183 WCF, 14 [7.1]. 184 ST, 1a.94.1. 185 ST, 1a.98.1. 180

78  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works humanity to reach above their created condition. His arguments show that the development of covenant theology was not entirely new, but the covenantal structure of Ussher’s theology was used to bring greater coherency to ideas that were common property of the greater Christian tradition. Granted, Protestants modified aspects of Thomas’ creation-​based eschatology, but the point remains that the eschatological dimension of the covenant of works was not new to them. The second point drawn from the eschatological dimension of a covenant is the importance of the concept of justification.186 Because Ussher argued that justification was a status that Adam could achieve in his state of innocence, justification cannot be limited to the remission of sins. Justification includes the attainment of positive righteousness. If Adam had completed his task, he would have fulfilled everything the law demanded; he would be justified. This is one factor that makes the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience so important within the full scheme of Ussher’s doctrinal system.187 To attain an eternal condition of blessedness, a person must be declared perfectly righteous, which remains the case even after the covenant of works was broken. The first Adam was the representative head that was supposed to fulfill the law for his posterity in the first covenant. According to Ussher, justification became a benefit of salvation in the covenant of grace because Christ was the second Adam who did fulfill the law and transfers that righteous status to all who accept it by faith.188 Although the reward offered in the covenant of works was eschatological life, the penalty for breaking the covenant was eternal death. In contrast to Ussher’s elaborate descriptions of the reward, his explanations of the penalty were rather unsurprising and straightforward. The retribution was condemnation to hell. Referring to the condition of perfect obedience for Adam, Irish Article 21 stated that the covenant of works “threatened death unto him if he did not performe the same.”189 Elsewhere Usher wrote, “The Covenant on God’s part was That if thou does continue, as Good as I made thee, I will be Thy God; If not, thou shalt die. . . . The Covenant on Gods part was, Life to the obedient, And death to the disobedient.”190 In a previously uncited Latin work, Ussher wrote, 186 The doctrine of justification and its links to the covenant of works are considered again in more extensive detail in Chapter 6. 187 Snoddy, Soteriology, 113–​22. 188 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 29r (sermon on Genesis 6:5, dated August 14, 1642). 189 Irish Articles, sig. B2v (article 21). 190 CUL MS Mm.6.55 fol. 21r (sermon on Genesis 3:1, dated July 3, 1642).

Content of the Covenant of Works  79 Through the Covenant of Works, God promises eternal life to man by its condition, in order that he would supply complete and perfect obedience to his law according to the ability that was given through the creation of his nature. Similarly as well, he threatened death to them if they did not supply it.191

He argued here that the parallel of the reward of the covenant was death for not supplying the required obedience to the law. It is noteworthy that the punishment was threatened in the instance that Adam did not supply complete and perfect obedience. Death was not threatened simply if Adam broke the law, as in a sin of commission, but also if he did not fulfill the positive duties required of him by that law, which would be a sin of omission: Unrighteousness and sin, wherein Adam did not supply the righteousness of the law that had been commanded, and against the righteous prohibition he made himself liable not only by a violation of the whole law, but also, and even especially, by this external act of eating from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, from which it had been expressly forbidden that he may not eat.192

The importance Ussher placed on sins of omission is even attested in his own life. His last recorded words were, “O Lord forgive me, especially my sins of omission.”193 The law was not just a matter of avoiding wrong actions. It required active obedience, and the covenant of works could be broken by sins of commission or omission. The reward and penalty attached to the covenant of works indicate that Ussher saw even the first state in which God created the human race as oriented toward a different eternal state. That state could be heightened and consummated on the premise of fulfillment of the law. The first state could also be relinquished by disobedience, whether of omission or commission, and it resulted in eternal condemnation. It is worth noting, however, the 191 TCD MS 287, fol. 102v (Per Foedus Operu[m]‌De[us] homini aeterna[m] vitam ea conditione prommittit ut integram et perfecta obedientia[m] legi eius praestet secundum facultate[m] illam, qua per creationis suae naturam p[rae]ditus erat. ac mortem similater illi minatur si haec non p[rae] stiterit). 192 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 37v (Iniustitia et peccatu[m]‌, qua iustitia[m] legis imp[er] atam Adamus no[n] praestitit, et contra iustitiae int[e]rdictae se reum fecit cum totius legis viola[ti]one, tum p[rae]sertim etia[m] externo facto illo comedendi de fructu arboris scientiae boni et mali de quo diserte interdictu[m] fuerit ne comederet). 193 Ford, Ussher, 271.

80  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works proportion of attention Ussher gave to each aspect. Although the penalty of condemnation is certainly important, perhaps mostly in practical terms for his audiences, the offered reward of eternal life was far more prominent in his works. This likely indicates that Ussher was more focused on the benefits of attaining heavenly blessings rather than the fear that could be instilled by the prospect of damnation. His rhetoric was one of persuasion by the offer of good things rather than of coercion by the inculcation of fear. This prominence of potential eternal life, particularly as it was offered to Adam, was more a result of the integrated nature of Ussher’s two-​Adams theology. Highlighting the eternal life that was possible for the first Adam correlated well with the eternal life that the second Adam, Jesus Christ, actually earned for his people.

Conclusion This chapter demonstrated that the elements of the covenant of works were consistently present in works written throughout Ussher’s career. Richard Snoddy rightly argued that there were aspects of development in Ussher’s theology over the course of his life, but this chapter has demonstrated that the covenantal framework in which Ussher elaborated categories of creation, righteousness, justification, and eternal life remained a stable feature of his work.194 Ussher, therefore, cannot be said to have entirely changed his views or to have abandoned his staunch Reformed commitments, not that Snoddy argued such. Covenant theology appeared in Ussher’s scholarly historical works, such as An Answer to a Challenge Made by a Jesuit in Ireland (1624), and in his academic lectures delivered in Oxford in 1643–​44. Significantly, however, he also defended this view in ecclesiastical publications, including Principles of the Christian Religion (1645, 1653)  and A Body of Divinitie (1645), and even throughout his sermons (1640–​55). This pervasive presence indicates that Ussher saw the covenant of works as relevant for the whole range of theological endeavors. In particular, his persistent presentation of the doctrine in works for wide use within the church shows that he certainly did not think it was a philosophically arcane view. He thought it was eminently useful for God’s people.



194 Snoddy, Soteriology,  1–​11.

Content of the Covenant of Works  81 The evidence of this chapter also showed that, strictly speaking, the covenant of works was not a distinctly Reformed idea. It was certainly a Reformed mode of expression and a Reformed integration of thought, but it was also a renovation and reconstrual of catholic doctrines. The covenant’s various elements all corresponded to elements appearing throughout the Christian tradition. Ussher’s theology was not original in that, even when he reformulated ideas and clothed them in new terminology, he was still using broadly catholic ideas. He appropriated, eclectically and with modification, many aspects of Thomism. His view of the eschatological potential of Adam’s original state was an old idea that Thomas clearly articulated. Ussher also held, at least in some respects, Thomistic presuppositions of intellectualism, theology as wisdom, and the doctrine of analogy. He knew of the competing medieval trajectories of Scotism, nominalism, and Thomism, and he most aligned with the Thomists. Ussher’s intersection with Thomism demonstrates that he formulated the covenant of works by interacting with the Christian past. His Reformed notions were recalibrations and redeployments of ancient ideas. The Reformed tradition, therefore, can holistically be described as Reformed catholic, but Ussher in particular shows how early modern Reformed thinkers defy broad generalizations. The origins of the covenant of works cannot be attributed entirely to distinct concerns of the early modern period because it had far too many links to older Christian doctrines. For example, Ramism was a simplified form of Aristotelian reasoning notable for extended bifurcated distinctions, and historians have debated its role in the development of the covenant of works.195 Older assessments argue that it was a major contributing factor to the birth of the two-​covenant model.196 Beach, on the other hand, contended that Reformed arguments drawn entirely from “scriptural givens” mean that the “Ramist charge finds no support in the mature expression of federal theology as represented by Turretin.”197 Beach’s conclusion and the older assessments are both reductionistically flawed. Ussher’s reflection on biblical data and theological ideas embedded in the Christian tradition undermine the overemphasis on Ramism. After all, Ambrogio Catarino, a Tridentine Roman Catholic theologian, also believed in a covenant with Adam, but Ramism was not a contributing factor to sixteenth-​ century Catholic 195 Richard A. Muller, “Reformed Theology Between 1600 and 1800,” in Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 173. 196 Weir, Federal Theology, 33–​34; Letham, “Foedus Operum,” 465–​67. 197 Beach, Christ and Covenant, 333–​34.

82  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works thought.198 Muller even argued that Ramism did not directly guide theology onto a covenantal trajectory.199 The Reformed impulse to formulate the covenant of works, therefore, cannot be reduced to Ramism. Beach, however, too flippantly rejected Ramism as a developmental factor. He examined Francis Turretin, who received bicovenantal theology rather than being its architect, but the covenant of works had already been refined and argued for some time before Turretin began teaching in Geneva. Turretin’s view, therefore, cannot prove whether Ramism added to the development of the two-​covenant model. Moreover, noting some role for Ramism in the development of the covenant of works is not pejorative. Theologians always used philosophical tools to do exegesis, make distinctions, and construct theological systems, but that does not mean philosophical tools dominated doctrinal formation. Ussher certainly used Ramist logic. It was a significant part of the curriculum of Trinity College, Dublin, when Ussher trained and lectured there.200 He organized the sermon notes from which he preached in Ramist diagrams.201 His lectures were full of twofold distinctions that manifest Ramist thinking.202 He indisputably made prolific use of Ramism as one of the intellectual tools to develop his theology. Yet his engagement with biblical texts and traditional theological ideas were far more important in shaping his formulations than was his deference to any philosophical system. He used Ramist methods for exegesis, categorization, and even stabilizing terminology, but it was not an overriding factor in his theology. Doctrinal formation was too complex to be reduced to one determining cause. It should be stressed at this juncture that this reading of Ussher as a Reformed theologian who made significant use of Thomistic understandings of doctrines such as the natural law and analogy contradicts an older Barthian reading of the Reformed tradition that poses those ideas as incompatible with true Protestantism. Barth’s work can seemingly be pinpointed as the primary reason that Protestant natural law theories, and likely Protestant appropriation of Thomas in general, were disparaged during much of the twentieth century.203 Barth saw revelation as only an event, which eliminated

198 Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 141–​92. 199 PRRD 1:181. 200 Elizabethanne Boran, “Ramism in Trinity College, Dublin from 1592 to 1641,” in Mordechai Feingold, Joseph S. Freedman and Wolfgang Rother (eds.), The Influence of Petrus Ramus (Basel, 2001), 178–​201. 201 E.g., Bodl. Rawlinson MS D 1290, fol. 47r–​50v. 202 Queen’s College, Oxford, MS 217, fol. 34r–​41r. 203 Grabill, Recovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics,  21–​53.

Content of the Covenant of Works  83 the possibility that something natural could contribute to revelation in any way.204 Barth’s existentialist theology led him to oppose the Thomist analogical understanding of the Creator-​creature relationship because it was rooted in the way God made the creature rather than in a correspondence of an “eternal divine act of Self-​determination and a historical human act of self-​determination and the ‘being’ (divine and human) which is constituted in each.”205 This existentialist reading of the Creator-​creature distinction would have been foreign to early modern Reformed Protestants, who thought that God’s use of natural things to reveal divine things to the creature was not incompatible with affirming the further need for supernatural revelation.206 Barth’s rejection of the traditional doctrine of analogy for a view of the Creator-​creature relation located in acts of self-​determination effectively rewrites, if not obliterates, the historical Reformed position on God’s communicable attributes, which, unlike Barth’s existential correspondence, taught that humans were able to reflect some divine attributes in a qualified (that is, analogical) way because they were made in the divine image, not because of their human choice and experience.207 The preceding analysis of Ussher’s doctrine of the covenant of works, however, thoroughly demonstrated the importance of doctrines such as the natural law, the integrity of nature, and even the revelatory capacity of nature through the doctrine of analogy for his formulation of the covenant of works. The Barthian reading of history assumes the necessity of a hard voluntarism in relation to the divine law and revelation that was not native to the Reformed tradition even in its more voluntarist forms.208 Historians of early modern religion must continue to give due attention to the presence of natural law theories if they are to overturn the inaccurate Barthian narrative and provide accurate readings of the primary sources.209

204 Trevor Hart, “Revelation,” in John Webster (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth (Cambridge: CUP, 2000), 45–​49. 205 George Hunsinger, “Grace and Being:  The Role of God’s Gracious Election in Karl Barth’s Theological Ontology,” in Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, 109. 206 PRRD 1:270–​310. 207 PRRD 3:223–​ 26; Allen, Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics, 65–​ 66 n.  11; Michael Beintker, “Analogy,” in Richard E. Burnett (ed.), The Westminster Handbook to Karl Barth (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013), 4–​6; Wolf Krötke, “The Humanity of the Human Person in Karl Barth’s Anthropology,” in Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, 167. 208 David Clough, “Ethics,” in Westminster Handbook to Karl Barth, 65–​68; Grabill, Recovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics,  35–​38. 209 Grabill, Recovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics, 70–​174; VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 67–​212; McNeil, “Natural Law in the Teaching of the Reformers,” 168–​82.

84  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Ussher described the original created state in holistically covenantal categories. He used covenant to explain the integrity of the nature with which Adam was first made. He outlined the type of relationship humanity was supposed to have with God in covenantal terms. He used covenant to explain the potential destiny of Adam, whether eternal life as a reward or eternal condemnation as the penalty. This covenant of works required perfect righteousness and active fulfillment of the law for Adam to achieve his justified standing with God. This covenant formed a paradigm for how Ussher understood many other doctrines, particularly Christology and salvation. There were, therefore, undeniably catholic connections between James Ussher’s covenant of works and the Reformed tradition.

3 Developing and Debating the Covenant of Works Introduction James Ussher played a major role in codifying the covenant of works, and the trajectory of its development demonstrates this claim. Ussher received and modified earlier versions of this doctrine, which shows his pivotal role in refining it in more thoroughly forensic, or legal, directions. Chapter  2 showed that Ussher drew the covenant’s major elements from important precedents in the Christian tradition. The links between Ussher’s doctrine of the covenant of works and classical Christian doctrines underscores a major point of this work about the underlying catholicity of the covenant of works. Some of those points are highlighted in summary fashion again in this chapter, not from neglectful repetition but to amplify further the importance of the links between Ussher, the covenant of works, and the Christian tradition. Although other non-​Thomist Reformed theologians certainly still held the covenant of works, this study highlights the links between Ussher and Thomas’ intellectualist tradition, which should in fact be seen as broadly characteristic of the Reformed conformist tradition in general.1 This chapter examines how Ussher engaged in Reformed discussions about the law-​ gospel distinction, Adam’s representative role, natural law, and the Mosaic covenant by interpreting them in connection to the covenant of works. These themes all link to those emphasized in Chapter  2:  Ussher’s intellectualist paradigm, the law’s foundational role, and the importance of a representative Adam. This chapter’s historical analysis is more tightly focused on the sixteenth-​and seventeenth-​century context. This analysis emphasizes historical connections between sources, proven by citations in the later authors, in order to trace what works theologians were demonstrably using to construct 1 Stephen Hampton, Anti-​Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I (Oxford: OUP, 2008), 221–​65. Catholicity and the Covenant of Works. Harrison Perkins, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197514184.001.0001

86  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works their own views. This method more readily exposes the actual pattern of theological discussion by identifying the sources Ussher actually used. It also notes shifts between earlier and later theological expression by showing how Ussher appropriated and modified doctrinal patterns from earlier sources.2 This chapter demonstrates a crucial point about the flexibility of the Reformed tradition. Reformed thinkers did craft the covenant of works very precisely and implemented it to carry significant theological weight in issues, such as soteriology, where they were unwilling to compromise on how these doctrines were explained. Still, Ussher formulated his expression of this covenant by interacting with conforming English clergy (William Perkins), Scottish royalist Presbyterians (Robert Rollock), and dissenting English Presbyterians (Dudley Fenner, Thomas Cartwright, and Samuel Crooke). This diversity of sources indicates that Reformed theology was not restricted to one ecclesiological outlook. Ussher was a conformist, but his doctrinal positions aligned with those who were indisputably Reformed and did not adopt the trappings of later Anglo-​Catholicism. Historiography, therefore, needs more space for Reformed conformists and should not reduce “Reformed” to the dissenting clergy.3 This point is not belabored throughout, but its significance should not be overlooked. As a Reformed conformist, Ussher was responsible for codifying one of Puritanism’s hallmark doctrines: the covenant of works. This chapter first looks at theologians that Ussher explicitly mentioned as important sources and considers his specific formulation in contrast to theirs. Ussher’s appropriation or modification of material from his theological “mentors” is thereby marked. Then the chapter explores how the covenant of works shaped Ussher’s views on two debated issues in the Reformed tradition: the notion of merit and the role of the Mosaic covenant. Both topics relate to the conversations among Reformed theologians discussed in the first section and further reveal underpinning issues in the covenant of works.

2 For more on this methodological concern for demonstrable historical connection, see Harrison Perkins, “Reconsidering the Development of the Covenant of Works:  A Study in Doctrinal Trajectory,” CTJ 53, no. 2 (November 2018): 289–​94. 3 Tom Webster, Godly Clergy in Early Stuart England: The Caroline Puritan Movement, c. 1620–​ 1643 (Cambridge: CUP, 1997), 149–​332; Hampton, Anti-​Arminians, 1–​38; W. B. Patterson, William Perkins and the Making of a Protestant England (Oxford: OUP, 2014), 40–​63; Peter Lake, “‘Puritans’ and ‘Anglicans’ in the History of the Post-​Reformation English Church,” in Anthony Milton (ed.), The Oxford History of Anglicanism, Volume I: Reformation and Identity, c. 1520–​1662 (New York: OUP, 2017), 352–​ 79; Stephen Hampton, “Confessional Identity,” in Oxford History of Anglicanism, 210–​27; Karl Gunther, Reformation Unbound: Protestant Visions of Reform in England, 1525–​1590 (Cambridge: CUP, 2017), 97–​130.

Development and Debates  87

Distinctives of Ussher’s Covenant of Works The covenant of works was widely taught in Reformed theology by the mid-​ 1640s, being advocated at the confessional level first in the Irish Articles (1615) and then in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), and this prevalent use raises the question about what was significant or distinct about Ussher’s articulation of this doctrine.4 This section looks at explanations of the covenant of works from theologians that Ussher expressly cited as being important to his thinking and then traces the continuity and discontinuity between Ussher’s formulations and those of his predecessors. This historical analysis explores how Ussher adopted and modified structural patterns of doctrine throughout his career and makes the methodological point that theologians cannot be compared arbitrarily if we want to understand the actual change of doctrine over time.5 There needs to be genuine, historical connection, such as citation or student/​teacher relationship, if we are to grasp how the discussion was actually being developed between individuals and in connected conversations. Ussher’s covenant theology is best understood when read in light of other theologians who had demonstrable connections to him. The doctrinal expression of authors whom he did not read reveals little about how he related to the doctrinal discussion of his day. Studies of covenantal thought regularly compare Ussher with John Ball (1585–​1640), but none of them sufficiently justify this juxtaposition by showing genuinely historical links between their works.6 Important studies by Woolsey and Fesko identified these individuals as fundamental influences upon the expression of covenant theology in the Westminster Standards, but even if this influence was significant, there is still no obvious reason to make repetitive comparison between them. Ussher (and Ball, for that matter) is most accurately analyzed and the uniqueness of his theology most clearly shown by contrasting his views with those of theologians whom we can prove he read and used. The authors examined here, therefore, were taken from Ussher’s list of recommended reading in his 4 Willem J. van Asselt, “Christ, Predestination, and Covenant in Post-​Reformation Reformed Theology,” in Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–​1800 (New York: OUP, 2016), 221–​25. 5 Perkins, “Reconsidering the Development of the Covenant of Works,” 289–​317. 6 Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought:  A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly (Grand Rapids, MI:  RHB, 2012), 35–​79; J. V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards:  Historical Context and Theological Insights (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), 125–​67; R. Scott Clark, “Christ and Covenant: Federal Theology in Orthodoxy,” in Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 422–​27.

88  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works lectures to divinity students at Oxford.7 This selection shows clear ways in which he adopted or modified the arguments of other covenant theologians. The “Perkinsian moment,” according to Michael McGiffert, was when the contrast of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace as distinct ways of relating to God came into prominence in English theology.8 McGiffert cited “Thomas Cartwright, Josias Nichols, and above all William Perkins” as major players in the propagation of this view.9 This observation is important because Ussher explicitly named both Cartwright and Perkins as major contributors to his thought.10 McGiffert claimed that Ussher had a significant role in the codification process of this two-​covenant system, but although his claim was accurate, it needs to be demonstrated from the primary sources. The covenant of works did not originate de novo in the sixteenth century and the notion of a covenant with Adam was an ancient idea.11 Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–​c. 200) and Augustine (354–​450) both explicitly referred to a covenant made with Adam, even if they did not outline its content in an identical way to the early modern covenant of works.12 Tertullian (c. 155–​ c. 240) was an avid proponent of natural law doctrines.13 More substantially, as noted in Chapter 2, Thomas Aquinas outlined significant elements that reverberated into Reformed thinking on the covenant of works, although his points were notably adjusted. This does not mean Ussher lifted Thomas’ ideas directly to formulate his covenantal view, but Thomas is an important figure in the history of Christian thought, and it is not surprising that Reformed theologians appropriated, with modification, many of his ideas.14 7 Queen’s College, Oxford, MS 217, fol. 42r–​42v. Ussher did recommend Ball’s catechism, which means he is one legitimate figure of comparison. Still, he is far from the only or even leading choice, and his posthumously published work A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (1645) is likely not the best choice for that endeavor, even though it has been the usual choice of historians of covenant theology. 8 Michael McGiffert, “The Perkinsian Moment of Federal Theology,” CTJ 29 (1994): 117–​48. 9 McGiffert, “Perkinsian Moment,” 118. 10 Queen’s College, Oxford, MS 217, fol. 42r; The Correspondence of James Ussher, 1600–​1656, ed. Elizabethanne Boran, 3 vols. (Dublin: Irish Manuscripts Commission, 2015), 3:880. 11 Woolsey described the covenant theology of Irenaeus and Augustine with an eye to their continuity and discontinuity with later covenantal thought; Unity and Continuity, 164–​66, 170–​82. See also J. Ligon Duncan III, “The Covenant Idea in Ante-​Nicene Theology,” PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 1995, 132–​57. 12 Sanctus Irenaeus, Libros quinque adversus haereses, ed. W. Wigan Harvey, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Typis Academicis, 1857), 3.11.11 (2:50). The book, chapter, and section divisions were altered in the typically cited Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.8, in ANF 1:429; Augustine, City of God, 16.27 in NPNF, 2:749. 13 John Anthony McGuckin, The Path of Christianity: The First Thousand Years (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 136–​46. 14 Richard A. Muller, “Not Scotist: Understandings of Being, Univocity, and Analogy in Early-​ Modern Reformed Thought,” RRR 14, no. 2 (2012): 127–​50; Richard A. Muller, “Calvinist Thomism Revisited: William Ames (1576–​1633) and the Divine Ideas,” in Kathleen M. Comerford, Gary W. Jenkins, and W. J. Torrance Kirby (eds.), From Rome to Zurich, Between Ignatius and Vermigli: Essays

Development and Debates  89 Ussher did approvingly cite Thomas, which indicates that he adopted aspects of Thomistic thought.15 A look at the Summa Theologica shows that Ussher’s view stands in broad continuity with portions of the medieval tradition, even if there are significant modifications. Thomas’ discussions in his Summa Theologica on the effects of grace and on merit are both relevant in connection with Ussher’s understanding of the covenant of works.16 Thomas addressed the eschatological potential for Adam under both topics, and this potential is a key intersection with what later became the covenant of works.17 He explained how it was possible for Adam to move toward righteousness even in the original state. “Righteousness” is the best gloss of iustitiam in Thomas’ discussion about justification, despite some translating it as “justice.”18 Even sinless Adam still had the potential to progress in righteousness, and Thomas called this potential to attain positive righteousness “justification”:  “Justification taken passively implies a movement towards justice [i.e., righteousness], as heat implies a movement towards heat.”19 Even though he defined justification as the remission of sins, Thomas also included an aspect that involved being positively righteous. Although it is certainly too much to call this proto-​ Protestantism, Protestants developed this idea into a forensic doctrine of justification in which sins are forgiven and the active obedience of Christ is imputed to believers.20 The most important piece from this discussion, however, is that Thomas saw a need for Adam to achieve positive righteousness. Additionally, Thomas’ discussion of merit indicated that Adam was not created in the highest state that he could reach: “God ordained human nature to attain the end of eternal life, not by its own strength, but by the help in Honor of John Patrick Donnelly, SJ (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 103–​20; John Patrick Donnelly, “Calvinist Thomism,” Viator 7 (1976):  441–​55; Jordan J. Ballor, “Deformation and Reformation:  Thomas Aquinas and the Rise of Protestant Scholasticism,” in Manfred Svensson and David VanDrunen (eds.), Aquinas Among the Protestants (Hoboken, NJ:  Wiley Blackwell, 2018), 27–​ 48; Stefan Lindholm, “Jerome Zanchi’s Use of Thomas Aquinas,” in Aquinas Among the Protestants,  75–​90. 15 James Ussher, An Answer to a Challenge Made by a Jesuite in Ireland (Dublin, 1624), 494–​95; Correspondence of James Ussher, 1:142; CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 4r (sermon on Job 11:7–​8, dated February 14, 1640 [1641]); Ussher, Body of Divinitie,  31–​32. 16 ST, 1a2ae.113–​114. 17 Carl R. Trueman, Grace Alone: Salvation as a Gift of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 96–​102. 18 ST, 1a2ae.113.1. The Latin text of Thomas’ Summa is available at “Sancti Thomae de Aquino Summa Theologiae.” Corpus Thomisticum (accessed at http://​www.corpusthomisticum.org/​sth2109. html on August 22, 2017). 19 ST, 1a2ae.113.1. 20 Fesko, Westminster Standards, 207–​38.

90  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works of grace; and in this way its act can be meritorious of eternal life.”21 Ussher certainly disagreed with Thomas’ concept of merit wherein Adam required God’s grace from the outset to attain to the eternal state, although it must be acknowledged that Thomas formulated this in certain ways to counter semi-​Pelagianism in his own day.22 Still, the difference in expression is clear in Ussher’s works. Irish Article 21 maintained that God, through “the covenant of the lawe,” “did promise unto [Adam] everlasting life, upon condition that he performed entire and perfect obedience unto his Commaundement, according to that measure of strength wherewith hee was endued in his creation.”23 This same point appears in Ussher’s 1653 catechisms: “The Law, of the covenant of workes: whereby God promiseth everlasting life unto man, upon condition that he performe intire and perfect obedience unto his Law, according to that strength wherewith he was indued by vertue of his creation.”24 Ussher’s view that Adam had natural ability to perform due diligence unto God’s law differed from Thomas’ view that grace was necessary to perform obedience because human nature did not have the strength to do so. For Ussher, Thomas’ understanding of humanity in the Garden was too similar to his view of how things were after the Fall because grace-​enabled obedience to the law was meritorious in both situations.25 In contrast, Ussher sharply distinguished the pre-​and post-​Fall situations. Adam was able by natural strength to perform the duties of the law. Grace was necessary to keep the God’s commandments only after the Fall. Ussher also denied that obedience after the Fall could be meritorious.26 All disagreement considered, though, both Ussher and Thomas believed that Adam had something further to attain after his creation, as both argued there was a higher destiny offered to Adam in connection to his lawkeeping. The seventeenth-​century teaching about an eschatological destiny attached to the creation order was not innovative. That idea, which was intricately connected to the formation of the covenant of works, went back at least as far as Thomas.

21 ST, 1a2ae.114.2. 22 Michael Horton, Justification: Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), 100–​124. 23 Irish Articles, sig. B2v (article 21) (emphasis added). 24 Ussher, Principles, 71–​72 (emphasis added); cf. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 124: “How was this Law given unto Adam in the beginning? It was chiefly written in his heart at his creation, and partly also uttered in his eare in Paradise; for unto him was given a will both to good and also to evill, and also to be inclined thereto with ability to perform it.” 25 Horton, Justification: Volume 1, 105. 26 Ussher, Answer, 493–​94.

Development and Debates  91 The early modern development of the covenant of works has been well documented and there is no reason to outline that history again.27 The focus can remain, therefore, on the sources Ussher used to compose his doctrine. This sheds light on his formulation by showing how he modified it in comparison to some authors, or combined various parts from several theologians. Thomas Cartwright (1535–​ 1603), William Perkins (1558–​ 1602), and Robert Rollock (1555–​1599) are examined here because Ussher mentioned them in ways that reveal they were important to his theological development.28 He said he used material from Cartwright’s works to compose A Body of Divinitie.29 He advised Oxford divinity students to read “all Rollock, Perkins,” but he did not recommend the entire corpus of any other authors.30 These writers give a good picture of the theology Ussher imbibed when working out his covenant theology. Thomas Cartwright taught at St. John’s College, Cambridge, where his vigorous promotion of Presbyterianism stirred controversy.31 He wrote two catechisms that remained in print at least until 1623.32 Importantly, the original edition (1611) of the longer catechism was significantly altered in the second edition (1616), which reveals that someone heavily revised the later printings after Cartwright’s death.33 Ussher, however, most likely used the original edition to compose his Body of Divinitie, a work he completed around 1615 when he was catechist at Trinity College, Dublin.34 The difference between the editions of Cartwright’s work is important because the terminology of the covenant of works was actually added to sections in later editions. The first edition did not feature the terminology of “the covenant of works,” but focused more on “the law,” which does not mean that this edition lacked the concept of the covenant of works but that Cartwright omitted the 27 Robert Letham, “The Foedus Operum: Some Factors Accounting for Its Development,” SCJ 14, no. 4 (1983): 457–​67; Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 399–​539; Clark, “Christ and Covenant,” 403–​ 28; David A. Weir, The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-​Century Reformation Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 99–​152. Weir’s historical analysis is suspect because he proceeds on Barthian assumptions about historical theology. 28 Some of the following analysis of Cartwright, Perkins, and Rollock, along with additional discussion of Dudley Fenner and Samuel Crooke, was published in Perkins, “Reconsidering the Development of the Covenant of Works,” 289–​317. Used with permission. 29 Correspondence of James Ussher, 3:880. 30 Queen’s College, Oxford, MS 217, fol. 42r. 31 Patrick Collinson, “Thomas Cartwright (1534/​5–​1603),” ODNB. 32 Thomas Cartwright, Christian Religion (1611); Thomas Cartwright, A Methodicall Short Catechism (1623). 33 Cartwright, Treatise of Christian Religion (1616). 34 Harrison Perkins, “Manuscript and Material Evidence for James Ussher’s Authorship of A Body of Divinitie (1645),” EQ 89, no. 2 (2018): 152.

92  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works terminology from his initial discussion.35 When Ussher read the first edition, he had to infer covenantal categories and supply that terminology.36 Still, he did adopt important features of Cartwright’s presentation. A crucial point Ussher appropriated from Cartwright was that the law held the determinative role in the relationship between Adam and God. Cartwright explained the “treatise of the Law” directly following his discussion of creation and providence: “Because it [the law] was before the Gospel, for it was given to Adam in his integritie, when the promise of grace was hidden in God.”37 He further argued for a proper ordering between law and gospel: “Must it [the law] therefore be first in use? Yea verely.”38 This concern for properly ordering the law and gospel runs throughout the Reformed tradition.39 The first prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly, William Twisse, made it the first topic in his catechism: How many waies doth the Word of GOD teach us to come to the Kingdome of Heaven? Ans. Two. Q. Which are they? A. The Law and the Gospel. Q. What sayth the Law? A. Do this and thou shalt live. Q. What sayth the Gospell? A. Beleeve in Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. Q. Can we come to the Kingdome of Heaven by way of Gods Law?

35 Cartwright, Christian Religion (1611), 68; cf. Cartwright, Christian Religion (1616), 85–​[86] (the 1616 edition was incorrectly paginated here as 74). Cartwright did retroactively refer in passing to his discussion of the law as the covenant of works, but he still did not cast his full discussion of the law under a covenantal heading. The section in Cartwright’s book where the language of the covenant of works does occur is not the section that Ussher quoted in his explanation of this covenant. This point does not alter the argument that when Ussher used Cartwright’s material on the law, he had to infer and add covenantal language. Cartwright, Christian Religion (1611), 123–​24; Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 124; quoting Cartwright, Christian Religion (1611), 68 (This quotation is analyzed more closely later in this chapter). 36 Woolsey’s study ran afoul here because he cited a 1619 edition, but it is likely only the 1611 edition that remains close enough to Cartwright’s words to give an accurate presentation of his thinking. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 445 n. 11, 445–​60. 37 Cartwright, Christian Religion (1611), 68. 38 Cartwright, Christian Religion (1611), 68–​69. 39 Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids, MI: RHB, 2012), 321–​35; R. Scott Clark, “The Reception of Paul in Heidelberg: The Pauline Commentaries of Casper Olevianus,” in R. Ward Holder (ed.), A Companion to Paul in the Reformation (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 297–​ 315; Michael Horton, “Law, Gospel, and Covenant:  Reassessing Some Emerging Antitheses,” WTJ 64 (2002): 279–​87.

Development and Debates  93 A. No. Q. Why so? A. Because we cannot doe it. Q. Why can we not doe it? A. Because we are all borne in sinne.40

Twisse clearly thought it was critical to understand the distinction between law and gospel, and prioritized the role of the law in that sin is the only reason people cannot go to heaven by it. Prior to the Fall, apparently the law was a legitimate method to attain the eternal state. He did not use covenantal terms, but the doctrinal content clearly matched at least Cartwright and Ussher’s. Ussher actually shared Twisse’s understanding of the law.41 In A Body of Divinite he wrote: “What was the summe of this Law? Doe this, and thou shalt live, if thou dost not, thou shalt dye the death.”42 The intersection with Ussher’s view is clear from remarks in a 1642 sermon: “In the first Covenant, If thou canst do that the Law commands, thou shalt be iustified by the Law. 10 Rom. 5. Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the man w[hi]ch doth these things, shall live thereby.”43 It would be misleading, given the evidence here, to claim that Twisse rejected covenant theology, even if he omitted the terminology.44 Cartwright and Twisse taught the important structural feature of the determinative role of the law for Adam. Ussher transposed that key feature into his theology and recalibrated it in covenantal terms.45 The three theologians clearly expressed an order of law before gospel. This ordering is obvious when Ussher preached, “This Covenant of nature was first in nature, and first in use.”46 Ussher’s role in the codification of the covenant of works becomes more obvious in light of the omission of covenantal terminology for the relationship between God and Adam in the works of significant figures such as Cartwright and Twisse. Ussher did not invent the terminology, though, as Woolsey credited Dudley Fenner (c. 1558–​1587) with being the

40 William Twisse, A Briefe Catechetical Exposition of Christian Doctrine (1633), 3–​4. 41 James Ussher, Eighteen Choice Sermons Preached in Oxford (1662), 76–​81 (sermon on Galatians 3:22), 353–​55 (sermon on Philippians 2:5–​8), 362–​67 (sermon on Hebrews 4:16). 42 Ussher, Body of Divinite, 125. 43 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 21v (sermon on Gen. 3:1 dated July 3, 1642). 44 cf. Dewey D. Wallace Jr., Puritans and Predestination: Grace in English Protestant Theology, 1525–​ 1695 (Chapel Hill: University of North Caroline Press, 1982), 197. 45 There was a relationship between Ussher and Twisse; Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:706–​14, 814–​17. 46 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 43v (sermon on John 1:14 dated October 30, 1642); Cartwright, Christian Religion (1611), 68–​69.

94  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works first to use the term foedus operum.47 Samuel Crooke (1575–​1649) spoke of the covenant of works in his catechism, which Ussher mentioned as a major source for his Body of Divinitie.48 Yet Ussher, even early in his career, helped bring covenantal terminology into the confessional mainstream through his role as the primary author of the Irish Articles.49 The Articles was the first Protestant confession to explicate the covenant with Adam, which identifies Ussher’s work as a crucial point in the increasing popularity of the doctrine. There should be little question that his work helped stabilize covenantal terminology for the law-​governed situation in Eden. As was the case with Cartwright, William Perkins taught theological elements that grew into the covenant of works, but he never provided a fully fledged description of a covenant between God and Adam.50 McGiffert’s claim that federalism reached its zenith in the “Perkinsian moment,” with Perkins as the foremost promoter of rigorous covenant theology, might lead us to expect Perkins to have a sophisticated formulation of the two-​covenant model, but Perkins’ works do not meet this expectation.51 He certainly taught the representative role of Adam: “Adam was not then a private man, but represented all mankind, and therefore looke what good he received from God, or evill elsewhere, both were common to others with him.”52 This same federal role of Adam was the foundation of the covenant of works. He, like Cartwright, Twisse, and Ussher, also emphasized the priority of the law. He characterized Adam’s state of innocence before the Fall as “subjection to God, wherby man was bound to performe obedience to the commandment of God: which are two. The one was concerning the two trees: the other observation of the Sabbath.”53 Despite these features of federal headship and the law’s priority, he did not employ covenant terminology in the same way as later exponents of federalism. 47 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 443; Dudley Fenner, Sacra Theologia (1585), 88. Fenner was a student and, later, a colleague of Cartwright. For a detailed analysis of Fenner, see Perkins, “Reconsidering the Development of the Covenant of Works,” 294–​99. 48 Samuel Crooke, The Guide unto True Blessednesse (1613), 19–​21. For further analysis of Crooke, see Perkins, “Reconsidering the Development of the Covenant of Works,” 309–​11. 49 Alan Ford, James Ussher: Theology, History, and Politics in Early-​Modern Ireland and Religion (New York: OUP, 2007), 83–​103. There is what is likely an early draft of the Irish Articles in Ussher’s own handwriting in TCD MS 287, fol. 102r–​105r. 50 There is one instance where Perkins made a passing reference to a covenant between God and Adam, but this does not constitute a rounded formulation of the doctrine. WWP 3:415 (An exhortation to repentance). 51 McGiffert, “Perkinsian Moment,” 118. 52 WWP 1:19 (A Golden Chaine); William Perkins, An Exposition of the Symbole or Creede of the Apostles (Cambridge, 1611), 197. 53 WWP 1:17 (A Golden Chaine).

Development and Debates  95 Perkins did refer to a covenant of works, but it was not a covenant with Adam: “The covenant of workes, is Gods covenant, made with condition of perfect obedience, and is expressed in the morall law.”54 He was not, however, speaking of the situation in Eden, which is a surprising part of his explanation of this covenant. The law was still the governing factor in Perkins’ covenant of works, as it was for Cartwright and for Ussher. All three also linked the covenant of works to the moral law. In this sense, the structural pattern of the doctrine is identical. Ussher certainly talked about the moral law being the covenant that promises life for perfect obedience.55 Ussher and Perkins differed, however, in their views of the moral law. Ussher and Cartwright said the moral law, expressed in the Decalogue, was first given at creation. The same law written in stone at Sinai “was imprinted in the beginning in the hearts of our first parents, and therefore called the Law of nature, Rom. 2:14.”56 Ussher’s interpretation of Romans 2:14 as evidence of the natural law was standard in Reformed Orthodoxy.57 Perkins argued, as quoted in the previous paragraph, that there were two commandments given to Adam, and the law that governed Edenic life was bound simply to those dual edicts to abide by the nature of the two trees and observe the creation Sabbath.58 Perkins identified the covenant of works with the moral law, but not in application to Adam.59 Although there is danger in over interpreting the structure of a book, it still seems relevant that in A Golden Chaine Perkins explained the covenant of works and the covenant of grace well after Creation and the Fall, and even after the natures and offices of Christ. He discussed both covenants in one chapter and designated both as “the outward meanes” of executing the decree of election.60 Ussher also suggested that God executed his decree

54 WWP 1:32 (A Golden Chaine). 55 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 21v (sermon on Genesis 3:1, dated July 3, 1642); Irish Articles, sig. B2v (article 21); Ussher, Body of Divinite, 125. 56 Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 124; Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 36r; cf. Cartwright, Christian Religion (1611), 68–​69. Ussher also interpreted Romans 2:13 to be about the “sort” of righteousness that comes by the law in contrast to the “sort” of righteousness that comes by faith (citing Galatians 2:20–​21), which supports that he would understand Romans 2:14 to be about natural law in reference to absolute righteousness as well; CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 171r (sermon on Matthew 6:14–​15, dated May 12, 1650). 57 David VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 144–​48, 159–​65, 172–​73; Stephen J. Grabill, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 94–​96, 116–​20, 137–​42,  147. 58 WWP 1:17 (A Golden Chaine). 59 Richard A. Muller, “Divine Covenants, Absolute and Conditional: John Cameron and the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology,” MAJT 17 (2006): 23, 32. 60 WWP 1:31 (A Golden Chaine).

96  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works by the covenant in his 1643–​44 lectures at Oxford: “Next, on the other hand, special providence concerning people is that by which the external condition of man is governed by a covenant.”61 Perkins, however, perceived the two covenants as parallel methods of “obtaining life eternall.”62 Perfect obedience and fulfillment of the entire law, or the Decalogue, which “is an abridgement of the whole law,” would earn the heavenly reward.63 Perkins’ scheme of the covenant of works was entirely hypothetical because it was an entirely post-​ Fall construct and because the human party of the covenant was fallen. The perpetual force of the law for the unregenerate had three uses, and all of them were to make known or increase their sinfulness and damnation.64 The law itself had no real potential to reward fallen people. Ussher and Perkins further disagreed about what law Adam had. This again shows that Ussher helped stabilize various part of the system of doctrine within a covenantal framework.65 Perhaps the most significant way Ussher departed from Perkins’ formulation of the covenant of works was that Ussher did not think that Adam’s opportunity to obtain eternal life by obedience to the moral law was merely hypothetical. Both Perkins and Ussher argued that the law Adam possessed could grant him eternal blessing. Still, whereas Perkins taught that the law of Sabbath observation would “confirme to man his perpetuall abode in the garden of Heden,” Ussher taught that Adam could have attained a higher state, as we saw earlier. Perkins thought Adam could live forever in the same state in which he was made, but Ussher taught that he could earn the new creation. Ussher’s view is, therefore, more eschatologically charged.66 Ussher did adopt Perkins’ doctrinal structure that the moral law is the covenant of works, but the law that granted reward for obedience was different in each scheme. One difference between them was the suggested origin of the moral law. Ussher taught that the moral law was embedded in the hearts of Adam and Eve at creation, but Perkins saw the moral law as essentially beginning at Sinai.67 This difference is important for two reasons. First, 61 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 35v (2 [secundum] providentia vero propria hominum est quâ externa hominu[m]‌conditio ex foedere p[ro]curatur). 62 WWP 1:32 (A Golden Chaine). 63 WWP 1:32 (A Golden Chaine). 64 WWP 1:69–​70 (A Golden Chaine). 65 VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 166–​71. 66 WWP 1:18 (A Golden Chaine). 67 WWP 2:298 (commentary on Galatians 4:24–​25). Perkins did make the passing remark “Fifthly, the law was in nature by creation.” Yet this seems inconsistent with his arguments even within the context of this sentence. I have not found a place where he argued this point at length, and he gave no explanation here. Elsewhere, it seemed that he thought the creation law was minimal. It could be that

Development and Debates  97 Ussher’s use of Perkins’ doctrinal structure evidences continuity and development within the Reformed tradition. Ussher did use ideas from Perkins, but he changed them. Robert Rollock, who was another important source for Ussher’s covenantal thought, posited an explicit pre-​Fall covenant between God and Adam. Ussher had to decide between Perkins’ post-​Fall parallel covenants of works and grace and Rollock’s creation-​oriented covenant of works. This sifting of ideas is one demonstrable way we can actually track doctrinal trajectories. Perhaps Ussher thought that Perkins’ construct did not harmonize sufficiently with the doctrinal system, so he chose versions of the covenant of works that connected the moral law and the natural law. Ussher’s formulation, therefore, was an important step in standardizing how the Reformed tradition spoke about the two covenants. Second, Ussher’s disagreement with Perkins about the moral law also indicates differing philosophical assumptions. Perkins’ separation of the two commandments before the Fall and the later imposition of the Decalogue at Sinai shows he did not think the law of God was necessarily unchangeable. Voluntarists prioritized the will over the intellect and so naturally taught that God’s choice determined the law. Intellectualists reversed that priority and taught that God’s nature—​not something outside and above God but the immutable God himself—​decisively grounded the law. God, therefore, did not decide the law but revealed his character in it.68 Perkins was clearly more voluntarist than Ussher, arguing that God could change the law even after it had been declared: Wee must understand every commandement of the law so, as that wee annexe this condition: unlesse God command the contrary. For God being an absolute Lord, and so above the law, may command that which his law forbiddeth:  so he commanded Isaac to be offered, the Egyptians to be spoiled, the brasen serpent to be erected, which was a figure of Christ, &c.69

Although very few Reformed theologians said that God was under his own law, not all of them so starkly said that God was free to command he was arguing here that the principle of law, i.e., “do this and you will live,” was in nature by creation, and he did teach that consistently. His view, as I argue, seemed to be more voluntarist on the content of the law given at creation though. 68 ST, 1a2ae.90–​94; Brian Davies, Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae: A Guide and Commentary (New York: OUP, 2014), 213–​16. 69 WPP 1:32.

98  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works contrary to his law.70 Perkins’ voluntarist approach to God’s law contrasted with Ussher’s more intellectualist view. Ussher’s take on the stability of the law distinguished his theology, but not so much that it excluded other ideas that were becoming common in Reformed thought. Even though he differed from Perkins on the law and taught that the Decalogue was built into creation, Ussher still taught there was a special commandment concerning the trees annexed to the covenant. He agreed with Perkins that there were particular commands in Eden, which again relates to the issue of divine natural law and divine positive law discussed in Chapter 2.71 This is one example of change and continuity within a doctrinal tradition. Historians should not neglect real changes in developing doctrinal formulations. Woolsey argued in his insightful work that Perkins taught the covenant of works in basically the same form as it appeared in later writers.72 His study is very useful with respect to Perkins, but it needs to be nuanced in that Perkins taught the covenant of works somewhat differently than later defenders of the doctrine did. Woolsey rightly noted the continuity with the later explanations of the doctrine, but his argument that Perkins taught the same view rests mostly on inference. He gathered elements from Perkins’ works to compile the doctrine of the covenant between God and Adam. The continuity of these elements is undoubtedly important. Yet Perkins, as we have seen, did not use the term “covenant of works” in reference to the relationship between God and Adam before Adam’s Fall. Woolsey showed that Perkins’ writings contain aspects of the mature doctrine, but these were spread throughout his works and he never gathered them into one coherent explanation of a covenant with Adam that had the premise of works. The significant continuity is that Perkins taught many of the elements that became the covenant of works between God and Adam and there are precursors of the doctrine in his writings. The discontinuity is that he did not explicitly teach the doctrine even though he clearly taught pieces of it. Later Reformed thinkers put those pieces from his writings together to construct the doctrine of the Adamic covenant of works. Woolsey correctly identified the various parts of this doctrine throughout Perkins’ books but overstated his case that Perkins identified the Decalogue with the creation law. The evidence given here shows that this was not Perkins’ view. Woolsey did demonstrate that 70 Anthony Burgess, Vindiciae Legis (1646), 62–​63. 71 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 21r (sermon on Genesis 3:1, dated July 3, 1642); Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:715. 72 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 466–​72.

Development and Debates  99 Perkins was important to the development of the doctrine. The argument here still supports Woolsey’s broader thesis that the doctrine of the covenants developed naturally and organically throughout church history and in the writings of the Reformed tradition. Perkins did teach elements of the covenant of works and did not substantially diverge from those who wrote before or after him. He was in continuity with them in that he adopted theological structures from the previous generation and refined them, just as the generation after him did with his theological structures. Ussher was part of the post-​Perkins generation—​perhaps its leader—​that put together the ideas concerning the covenant with Adam that were only incipient in Perkins’ writings. There are fewer obvious differences between the views of Ussher and Robert Rollock on the covenant of works. Rollock was a Scottish minister who trained and taught at the University of St. Andrews but helped establish the University of Edinburgh in 1583, where he was professor of theology and became its first principal in 1587.73 He was highly significant for the shaping of Reformed theology in Scotland, and, crucially for this study, he emphasized covenant theology, even playing a pivotal role in its development.74 He, like Perkins, made use of Ramist logic.75 Woolsey claimed that Rollock followed Perkins’ distinction of legal and evangelical covenants, but Aaron Denlinger proved that Rollock’s formulation of the two covenants predated its first appearance in Perkins’ writing.76 Further, Perkins’ covenant of works was limited to a postlapsarian principle, mostly identified with the Mosaic covenant, but Rollock advocated a covenant of works with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Rollock’s work has an important relationship to Ussher’s, not only because Ussher cited him as a central theologian but also because Ussher followed Rollock’s covenant theology more closely than that of any other published theologians of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.77

73 Andrew Woolsey, “Robert Rollock (1555–​1598): Principle, Theologian, and Preacher,” in Select Works of Robert Rollock, edited by William M. Gunn, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Woodrow Society, 1844–​ 1849; repr. Grand Rapids, MI: RHB, 2008), 1:1–​2, 4, 7. 74 Robert Rollock, “Robert Rollock’s Catechism on God’s Covenants,” trans. Aaron C. Denlinger, MAJT 20 (2009): 105; Aaron Clay Denlinger, “Introduction,” in Robert Rollock, Some Questions and Answers About God’s Covenants and the Sacrament That Is a Seal of God’s Covenant: with Related Texts, translated and edited by Aaron Clay Denlinger (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2016), 3–​17; Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 512–​39; Woolsey, “Robert Rollock,” 1:11–​16. 75 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 515–​16; Woolsey, “Robert Rollock,” 1:4–​5. 76 Woolsey, “Robert Rollock,” 1:10; Denlinger, “Introduction,” 7, 11. 77 Woolsey, “Robert Rollock,” 1:16.

100  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Rollock placed the covenant of works as a relationship between God and Adam: Q. What is the covenant of nature or works? A. It is the covenant of God in which he promises man eternal life under the condition of good works proceeding from the powers of man’s nature, and man accepts that condition of good works. Lev 18:5; Rom 10:5; Gal 3:12.78

Although he did not name Adam here, the interchangeable terminology of “nature” and “works” indicates that this covenant was something present at creation. The discussion in the subsequent questions of this catechism substantiates this point: “It was established with man in his first creation.”79 The foundation of the covenant of works is a good, holy, and upright nature—​the kind of nature that existed in man by creation. For if God had not made man after his own image—​that is, wise, holy, and righteous by nature—​he surely could not have established with him this covenant, which has for its condition holy, just, and perfect works of nature. Gen 1:26–​27; Eph 4:24; Col 3:9.80

This passage not only ties Rollock’s covenant of works to the creation order but also raises the issue of the strength of Adam’s nature. Chapter 2 showed that Ussher believed that Adam was given the ability to fulfill the law by virtue of his creation. Ussher was concerned to remove all vestiges of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the superadded gift from his understanding of the covenant of works. The Irish context was dominated by a Roman Catholic presence, and this pressing threat helped shape Ussher’s doctrine. As noted previously, Ussher’s chief foil as professor of theological controversies was Robert Bellarmine, who had argued that Adam needed a supernatural gift of righteousness.81 There can be no doubt that concern to refute Bellarmine affected Ussher’s formulations even on this point. Whereas English authors may have been primarily concerned about antinomianism, which gave them more freedom to discuss a type of grace in the covenant of works, Ussher stripped that language from his theology, likely

78 Rollock, Questions and Answers, 21–​22 (italics original). 79 Rollock, Questions and Answers, 24. 80 Rollock, Questions and Answers, 22.

81 Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis Christianae Fidei, tomus quartus (Sartorius, 1601), 15.

Development and Debates  101 because he thought it left too much room for Catholic notions. Too, Roman Catholicism lingered more heavily in Scotland than in England, possibly making Rollock feel that Catholic theology was the proximate danger, and so he also emphasized that “works proceeding from grace . . . are excluded from the covenant of works. Rom 11:6.”82 His formulation was in direct parallel with Ussher’s. Rollock maintained that the law and faith are opposed as principles for obtaining what God has promised: “For these two, law and faith, thus far conflict, so that if a person might be righteous by faith, now he might not be by the law. And from the contrary, if from the law, now it is not by faith.”83 Rollock and Ussher argued that the law of creation was a binding rule that required perfect obedience to obtain the reward, but the principle of works conflicted with faith after the Fall. “The law is not faith, indeed, the formula of the law covenant makes clear that nothing of the law is common with faith,” he wrote. “The condition of that formula, which is of works, is not able to join with faith. In fact, to do and to believe do not combine, nor agree unto the establishing cause of eternal life.”84 Rollock said starkly that “the formula of the law covenant” “had nothing in common with faith.” He removed any possibility of mixing the principles of works and grace when it came to receiving God’s blessing. These comments on Galatians 3:12, therefore, make it significant that Galatians 3:10–​12 was among Ussher’s most cited texts.85 The prevalence of these verses from Galatians in the arguments of the predominant advocates of the covenant of works with Adam shows that there was at least one specific exegetical line that was influential in developing the legal covenant. This exegetical trajectory demonstrates that exegesis was still a driving force in Reformed theological reflection, even if additional factors, such as Ramist logic, were supplemental tools.86 There is further correspondence between Ussher’s doctrine and Rollock’s. Rollock affirmed, “The covenant of works, which may also be called legal or 82 Rollock, Questions and Answers, 23. 83 Robert Rollock, Analysis Logica in Epistolam Pauli Apostoli Ad Galatas (1602), 54 (nam haec duo lex & fides, adeo pugnant, ut si ex fide sit justitia, jam non sit ex lege: ac è contra, si ex lege, jam non sit ex fide). 84 Rollock, Galatas, 55 (Legem non esse fidem, vel nihil legi esse cõmune cum fide ostendit ex formula foederis legalis, cujus conditio, quae est operum, cum fide non potest consentire: facere enim & credere non consentiunt, neque concurrant ad causam vitae aeternae constituendam). 85 E.g., Ussher, Principles, 10–​11 (four instances); Bodl. MS Rawl. D1290, fol. 7r; Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 32r (two instances). 86 Richard A, Muller, “Either Expressly Set Down . . . or by Good and Necessary Consequence,” in Richard A. Muller and Roland S. Ward, Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation and The Directory for Public Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2007), 69–​81.

102  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works natural, was founded in nature which was pure and holy in creation, and it was founded in the law of God, which was carved into human hearts in creation.”87 The covenant of works was repeated after the Fall, particularly in the Mosaic covenant, which indicates the fundamental continuity of the law as it was given at creation and given to Moses.88 Letham’s assessment was, therefore, correct: “For Rollock, the foedus operum is thoroughly legal and, indeed, can be identified with the moral law.”89 This point distances Rollock from Perkins’ voluntarist notion of the law and makes him the much closer antecedent of Ussher’s notion of the law. In light of the preceding evidence concerning the development of the covenant of works, wherein Ussher codified ideas primarily from Cartwright, Perkins, and Rollock, the notion of a “Perkinsian moment” of covenant theology needs to be rethought.90 The treatment of Rollock given here has been briefer than that for Perkins simply because more work was needed to understand the continuity between Perkins and Ussher than between Rollock and Ussher. Although it does seem that Ussher favored Rollock’s structure of the covenant of works, this preference does not negate the importance of other sources. Ussher did cite both Perkins and Rollock as the preeminent authors to read, and this should be taken seriously.91 Ussher pulled structures from Perkins and mapped them into Rollock’s more integrated descriptions, as will be even more noticeable in the discussion of Ussher’s view of the Mosaic covenant. Ussher’s more direct connection to Rollock opens further analysis in the genealogy of the covenant of works. Ussher had to choose between Rollock’s and Perkins’ formulas and opted for the former. Rollock may have actually been the one who set the trends of covenant theology. There were significant ways in which Ussher modified the formulations of Cartwright and Perkins, neither of whom argued Ussher’s mature version of the covenant of works, at least under that term. Denlinger rightly indicated Rollock’s unique and pivotal role in developing covenant theology.92 The corollary of this argument is that Ussher was the next major advocate of what would become the mainstream confessional position by the mid-​seventeenth century. 87 Robert Rollock, Tractus De Vocatione Efficaci, Quae inter locos Theologiae communissimos recensetur, deque locis specialioribus, qui sub vocatione comprehenduntur (Edinburgh, 1597), 9 (Foedus operum, quod & legale sive naturale vocari potest, fundatum est in natura quae fuit in creatione pura santaque, & in lege Dei, quae in prima creatione insculpta fuit hominis cordi). 88 Rollock, Questions and Answers, 25. 89 Letham, Foedus Operum, 458. 90 McGiffert, “Perkinsian Moment,” 117–​48. 91 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 42r. 92 Denlinger, “Introduction,” 3–​9.

Development and Debates  103 Rollock may have been pivotal in formulating a position, but Ussher officially codified it within the Reformed tradition. His Irish Articles, after all, first presented it as the confessed view of a reforming church. The Perkinsian moment may have actually been a bit more Ussherian.

Ussher and the Notion of Merit Ussher’s teaching on Adam’s potential to earn a reward by works raises the issue of merit, which is complex and requires nuance.93 Ussher taught a form of what some Reformed writers called “merit by the covenant,” meaning that Adam could not have merited de facto or absolutely, but the terms of the covenant made it possible to merit the reward if the conditions were met. This principle was noted in Chapter 2 as a clear feature of Ussher’s theology. Reformed writers expressed themselves differently on this topic, and historical and confessional contexts were always important factors. This was certainly true for Ussher. Perkins devoted a section in A Reformed Catholicke to the issue of merit, writing, “By Merit, we understand any thing or worke, whereby Gods favour and life everlasting is procured; and that for the dignity and excellencie of the worke or thing done; or, a good worke done, binding him that receiveth it to repay the like.”94 He rejected the idea that a person can merit reward from God, and that rejection, in a point about salvation of sinners, was clearly shaped by the Roman Catholic view on congruent merit. He never discussed if merit was in any way possible before the Fall, but he also did not emphasize a covenantal view of the pre-​Fall context. He lacked the apparatus to consider Adam’s state as one in which earning eschatological blessing could occur. Additionally, he seemed not to have the eschatological emphasis Ussher had attached to the covenant of works, which may mean that Perkins did not think there would have been a higher reward for Adam to earn.95 Regardless, Perkins provided a clear definition of merit that can be used for further consideration of Ussher’s theology. Perkins’ definition of merit can be summarized as a work that procures everlasting life.96 Although this issue requires care, his wording is similar to the way that Ussher outlined 93 Heiko A. Oberman, “The Tridentine Decree on Justification in the Light of Late Medieval Theology,” Journal for Theology and the Church 3 (1967): 28–​54, esp. 37. Thanks to Bryan Estelle for alerting me to this source. 94 WWP 1:574 (A Reformed Catholicke). 95 WWP 1:17–​8 (A Golden Chaine). 96 WWP 1:574 (A Reformed Catholicke).

104  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works the terms of the covenant of works. This does not necessarily mean Ussher used the term “merit,” but it does mean that according to one early modern Reformed definition of merit—​written by one of Ussher’s chief influences—​ he taught a notion of merit. This section argues that notions of merit, particularly concerning Adam before the Fall, depend on more than just use of the term “merit” itself. Ussher said Adam was able to earn the eternal state for himself and his posterity by use of the faculties granted to him by creation. This ability accorded with the covenant of nature. Perkins’ definition of merit included earning reward by natural ability, but Ussher did not call it such in his regular explanations. This reveals the complexity of analyzing whether Reformed thinkers held that there was a possibility of merit in the covenant of works. Some may have objected to the actual notion, some only to the terminology, and others objected to neither.97 The issue requires careful consideration and nuanced explanation. Ussher’s Irish context made his heavy emphasis on Adam’s natural ability to fulfill the covenant and earn its reward a useful anti-​Catholic weapon. He drew on a Reformed doctrine of merit according to the covenant from at least one other Reformed minister writing in a heavily Catholic context.98 Daniel Chamier (1565–​1621), a Huguenot minister, defended this category:  “In merit by covenant, however, the work is that to which whereas nothing on its own account would be strong enough to obligate, nevertheless, by the voluntary communion, or agreement, obligation occurs, therefore, so that a reward of such great excellence is owed.”99 Chamier expanded this explanation in another work: On the other hand, merit by the covenant, whereas it does not have the strength to obligate on its own account, nevertheless, it does have it from the arrangement, so that either a full or greater reward for the work is owed to it. This again has a twin; it has strength to merit some things by the promise, others by the covenant. That is by the promise it has strength to merit so far as by its arrangement by which reward is expected, so that the

97 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 75; Beeke and Jones, Puritan Theology, 229–​32. 98 Scott R. Swain, “The Gospel in the Reformed Tradition,” in Jonathan A. Linebaugh (ed.), God’s Two Words: Law and Gospel in the Lutheran and Reformed Traditions (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018),  95–​96. 99 Daniel Chamier, Panstratiae Catholicae, 4 vols. (Geneva, 1626), 3:241 (Meritum verò ex pacto, opus est, cui cùm per se nulla sit vis obligandi, tamen ex voluntate communi, sive compacto fit obligatorium, ita ut debeatur merces talis, tantque). This work appears to have been published as early as 1606, but a copy of this 1606 edition was not available.

Development and Debates  105 rewards are displayed with sporting contests whether by the King or by the people. Then indeed merit of such value is by the arrangement, but furthermore the method of the arrangement pays from only the will of the one who arranges.100

Ussher actually suggested divinity students read Chamier’s anti-​Catholic works, so we know that he encountered this doctrine.101 Other Reformed writers also taught this doctrine. John Brown (c. 1610–​1679), a Church of Scotland minister who developed close relationships with Dutch theologians, used it as well: By merit here must either be understood, that which is called meritum ex condigno, that is, that merit, which ariseth from the due proportion of worth, that one thing hath unto another, in the ballance of equity & justice. And who ever imagine this merit in their works, must dreame of an intrinsic worth in their works, which God, if he do according to justice, cannot but reward with eternal life: or that which is called meritum ex congruo, which floweth not from any inward Condignity in the work, but from a Promise or Covenant, & so it is meritum ex pacto, whereby the reward is not absolutly of grace, but of debt, because of a congruity in the thing, in respect of the Promise & Compact made. Our Adversaries cannot understand this last, when they say, that Paul disputeth against merit, because themselves own it, when they make works the Condition of the Covenant, & God to have promised justification & life unto our works.102

Johannes Braun (1628–​1708), professor in Groningen, additionally argued for the category of merit according to the covenant: If Adam had stood, and performed all things [of the law], he would even have merited, but I.  not by condign merit, as if either his person, or his works would have been worthy of so great a reward. There is no creature,

100 Daniel Chamier, Corpus Theologicum Seu Loci Communes Theologici (Geneva, 1653), 220 (At meritum ex pacto, etsi per se vim obligandi non habet, tamen ex instituto habet: ut ei operi merces, vel tota vel tanta debeatur. Hoc rursus geminum, alias ex promissione vim merendi habet, alias ex pacto; quod est ex promissione, vim merendi habet duntaxat ex eius instituto a quo merces expectatur: ut cum ludicris certaminibus proponuntur praemia sive a Rege, sive a populo: tunc enim non tantum meritum est ex instituto, sed etiam instituti ratio pendet a sola voluntate eius qui instituit). 101 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 41v. 102 John Brown, The Life of Justification Opened (Utrecht, 1695), 481 (italics original).

106  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works though perfect, who can merit this way in the presence of God. 1) Because we owe everything to God. Lk. 17:10. 2) No one is able to bring obligation upon God since he would be El Shaddai, God the sufficient one. Gen. 17. See Job 22: 2. 3) Whatever good things a man has, it is from God. Phil. 2:13; Ac. 17:28; 1 Cor. 4:7. 4) Nothing is given proportionately between the work of creatures, and the enjoyment of God. II. It would not even have been by congruent merit, certainly because of the extraordinary gifts, which he had received from God. 1) Because God is not a respecter of persons, whom he made able by the particular gifts. 2) Because there was no grace in the case of Adam, the one building favor, when everything he would have was from God. Merit, therefore, was to its extent by the covenant, following the stipulation of the covenant, by the mere good pleasure of God.103

Ussher omitted this terminology in his writings, which suggests that he was not enthusiastic about the word “merit.” Crucially, however, Chamier, Brown, and Braun all wrote in regions and periods in which confessional identity was contested, each intending to exclude any vestiges of Roman Catholic theology. The Irish and Huguenot contexts both entailed the same Catholic threat for Protestant theologians, and Ussher was certainly more preoccupied with this danger than some English theologians when he formulated the covenant of works.104 The notion of merit by the covenant may not have been predominant, but it was a legitimately implemented anti-​ Catholic polemic. Chamier regularly used it.105 He insisted, “Therefore it is clear that merits are able to be called nothing, except according to the covenant.”106 Richard Baxter confirmed that this category was an accepted anti-​Catholic polemic: “And our own Divines generally approve of them that 103 Johannes Braunius, Doctrina Foederum sive Systema Theologiae (Amsterdam, 1691), 259–​60 (Si Adamus stetisset omniaque fecisset, meritus quidem fuisset, sed I. Non ex Condigno, quasi vel ipsius persona, vel ipsius opera tanto praemio digna fuissent. Nulla sane creatura, etiamsi perfectissima, apud Deum mereri potest. (1. quia Deo Omnia debemus. Luc. 17:10 (2. Deo nullum potest adferri commodum cum sit ‫ אל דישׁ‬Deus sufficiens. Genes. 17. Vide Job 22:2. (3. Quicquid homo boni habet, id habet a Deo. Phil. 2:13. Act. 17:28. 1 Cor. 4:7 (4. Nulla datur proportio inter opus creaturae, & fruitionem Dei. Nec etiam II. Meritus fuisset ex congruo, scilicet propter eximia dona, quae a Deo acceperat. (I. quia Deus fuisset acceptor personarum, qui benefaceret ob propria dona, (2. quia in Adama nulla fuit gratia gratum faciens, cum Omnia a Deo habuerit. Ergo meritus ex pacto tantum, secundum stipulationem foederis, ex mero beneplacito Dei) (italics original in the Latin). 104 Cf. John Davenant, Animadversions upon a Treatise Intitled, Gods Love to Mankind (Cambridge, 1641), 318. 105 Chamier, Panstratiae Catholicae, 3:241, [246], 4:17; Chamier, Corpus Theologicum, 195 (Merita duobus modis dici, vel ex iure vel ex pacto. Merita ex iure ea sunt quae sua ipsorum vi obligant alium ad mercedem: Merita vero ex pacto, quae non sua vi, sed tantum ex hypothesi), 220, 221, 302. 106 Chamier, Panstratiae Catholicae, 3:[246] (Ergo perspicuum, merita posse dici nulla, nisi ex pacto). Original was incorrectly paginated as 226.

Development and Debates  107 hold only Meritum ex pacto, as to the thing, denying only the fitness of the name, and that this is any proper Merit. This all Divines know to be true that have read the Papists writings and ours against them.”107 Still, “merit” terminology is indifferent since the Reformed would have a natural aversion to Catholic-​sounding language. The interrelation of Irish and English contexts also complicated the shape of Ussher’s rhetoric. He seemed to appropriate the content of merit by covenant, but he may have avoided the term because “anti-​Calvinists” used it.108 The issue remained, however, whether Adam could earn a reward by his natural strength on the terms of the covenant, which Ussher clearly affirmed. Ussher by no means accepted Roman Catholic medieval scholastic paradigms of merit. Protestant revision of these schemes, however, made the issue of merit far more complicated than what has at times been realized. Medieval theologians had a complex system of condign merit and congruent merit. Muller summarized these categories as “(1) a meritum de condigno, a merit of condignity or full merit, deserving of grace, and (2) a meritum de congruo, a half-​merit or act not truly deserving of grace, but nevertheless receiving grace on the basis of divine generosity.”109 Condign merit deserved any reward given, but congruent merit received a reward despite the fact that the work performed was imperfect.110 When even a finite and crippled person does all he is able, God “responds by doing as much as he is able—​ which, of course, is infinitely greater.”111 Thomas said both types of merit depend on God’s grace and, in fact, argued that merit is “the effect of co-​ operating grace.”112 Later medieval theology, following John Duns Scotus, argued that even a person who had not been granted prior grace could earn God’s grace by doing all they were capable of doing.113 Grace and merit were not mutually exclusive ideas. Reformation theologians, however, vigorously 107 Richard Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Admonition to William Eyre of Salisbury Concerning His Miscarriages in a Booke Lately Written for the Justification of Infidels (1654), 10. 108 John Buckeridge, “A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Right Reverend Father in God Lancelot Late Lord Bishop of Winchester. In the Parish Church of St. Saviors in South-​warke on Saturday Being the XI of November, A.D. MDCXXVI,” in Lancelot Andrewes, XCVI Sermons (1629), 14 (note that the pagination in this volume restarts at this sermon). 109 DLGTT, 217. 110 Heiko Augustinus Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Academic, 1983), 131, 161–​78; David Steinmetz, “Medieval Nominalism and the Clerk’s Tale,” The Chaucer Review 12, no. 1 (1977): 44–​45; Alistair McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: CUP, 2005), 286, 87, 114–​15. 111 DLGTT, 218. 112 ST, 1a2ae.114.1; Horton, Justification: Volume 1, 112–​24. 113 DLGTT, 218; Oberman, Harvest, 146; Horton, Justification: Volume 1, 131–​62.

108  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works attacked this medieval construct. Luther reclaimed the doctrine of justification because he could not reconcile the idea of congruent merit with the idea of a perfectly just God.114 These issues remained live in post-​Reformation Ireland and Britain. The discussion to relate works and grace continued despite complexities and differences among Reformed thinkers. Ussher defined the covenant of works by modifying a Thomistic definition of merit, as examined later. His approach was structurally identical to many found in Reformed writings regardless of whether they used “merit” terminology. Ussher wrote a lengthy chapter on merit in An Answer to a Challenge Made by a Jesuite in Ireland (1624). He outlined the Catholic position: “That man for his meritorious workes receiveth, through the assistance of Gods grace, the blisse of everlasting happinesse.”115 His problem was the Catholic claim that sinners could merit everlasting happiness (salvation) if they were enabled by grace. He cited Bernard of Clairvaux to argue that merit excluded grace “because it is grounded upon the Apostles determination, Rom. 11.6, If it be of grace, it is no more of workes: or else were grace no more grace.”116 Ussher did affirm that God rewards those who keep his commandments, but only because of mercy. He cited Psalm 62:12, “With thee, O Lord, is MERCY: for thou rewardest every one according to his worke,” but he distinguished God’s rewards from the throne of grace and the throne of justice.117 God in grace and mercy gives reward for good works, but not according to accrued merits. Ussher summarized the teaching of the church fathers as concluding that “the dignitie of the good workes done by Gods children doth not proceed from the value of the workes themselves, but only from the gratious promise and acceptation of God.”118 He thus argued that although patristic authors used the term “merit,” they were referring to the attainment of an offered reward.119 He clarified this terminology to harmonize his view with that of the early church. His point throughout the chapter was that a person who needs grace cannot perform works that merit eternal reward. Grace and merit are different paradigms. Ussher rejected categories of merit that claim God receives a person’s works as adequate for the reward of salvation. He flatly denied congruent 114 Mark Mattes, “Luther on Justification as Forensic and Effective,” in Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, 268–​70. 115 Ussher, Answer, 492–​93. 116 Ussher, Answer, 493. 117 Ussher, Answer, 494. 118 Ussher, Answer, 520; Snoddy, Soteriology, 169. 119 Ussher, Answer, 499.

Development and Debates  109 merit and avidly opposed that a sinner’s good works, even assisted by grace, could earn eternal life. He did, however, connect works and eternal life in the covenant of works. Adam could earn a reward from God in a relationship of justice where the covenant defined the terms. This resembles very closely Chamier’s teaching on merit by covenant. Further, Thomas argued, “man’s merit with God only exists on the presupposition of Divine ordination.”120 Humanity had no equality with God, so absolute merit could not exist. God appointed “a reward of his operation” for “what God gave him the power of operation for.”121 Ussher’s view, which he thought accorded with patristic sources, was that originally . . . and in itselfe, we hold that this reward proceedeth merely from Gods free bountie and mercie: but accidentally, in regard that God hath tied himself by his word and promise to conferre such a reward, we grant that it now proveth in a sort to be an act of justice, even as in forgiving of our sins (which in itself all men know to be an act of mercie) he is said to be faithful and just, I Joh.1.9. namely, in regard of the faithfull performance of his promise. For promise, we see, amongst honest men is counted as due debt, but the thing promised being free, and on our part altogether undeserved, if the promiser did not performe, and proved not to be so good as his word; he could not properly be said to doe me wrong, but rather to wrong himself, by impairing his own credit.122

He approvingly quoted Thomas’ discussion of merit in which God’s promise makes him a debtor, somewhat to us, but mainly to himself.123 He modified Thomas’ definition of merit and applied it to the covenant of works. Merit terminology was not pervasive in his works, but he endorsed it by citing Thomas and reconfigured it in relation to the covenant—​merit by covenant. Ussher still significantly differed from Thomas, as Thomas thought Adam needed grace to fulfill his obligations, but Ussher argued Adam had strength to do so by nature.124 Throughout his writings, Ussher consistently used this modified version of merit that he drew from Thomas, which also paralleled 120 ST, 1a2ae.114.1; Davies, Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, 229. 121 ST, 1a2ae.114.1. 122 Ussher, Answer, 494. 123 Ussher, Answer, 494–​95; citing ST, 1a2ae.[1]‌14.1–​3. 124 ST, 1a2ae.109.2; CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 21r (sermon on Genesis 3:1, dated July 3, 1642), fol. 27v (sermon on Genesis 6:5, dated July 31, 1642); Irish Articles, sig. B3r (article 23), sig. B2v (article 21); Ussher, Principles (1653), 7, 10–​12, 69; Body of Divinitie, 104–​5, 115–​66, 124–​25.

110  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Chamier’s merit by covenant. This point supports the argument that “merit” terminology was largely indifferent, but the relationship between earning and blessing matters. Ussher structured the covenant of works in categories of works and rewards. The goal of the covenant was everlasting life (reward) on the condition of Adam’s perfect obedience (terms). Some, however, have debated the role of merit in covenant theology. J. B. Torrance, Holmes Rolston III, and Thomas F. Torrance argued that later federal theology fashioned a legalist model by infusing merit into Reformed covenantal thought.125 Michael Williams, on the other hand, claimed that merit is incompatible with the Westminster Standards because “usually the word [‘merit’] is used to refer to a deserved reward or privilege that accrues upon the fulfillment of stipulated terms. When the terms are met, the reward is earned as an entitlement by the one who labors and is owed by the party who receives the labor.”126 Ussher, however, structured the covenant of works precisely this way. Williams assumed that personal relationships oppose merit, asserting that since the Westminster catechisms began with a personal relationship, they cannot include merit.127 He did not document this assumption, though, and it is not obvious that the Westminster divines shared it.128 More likely, there was disagreement on this issue, and some of them argued for categories that could be called merit, while others rejected it outright. Theologians’ various understandings of “merit” created complications, and the relationship between grace and so-​called merit was a contentious one. Even when a theologian rejected the term “merit,” his explanation of the covenant of works might have been indistinguishable from what other theologians called merit.129 Ussher’s formulations were more congenial with some notion of merit. Ussher’s was not the only opinion on this issue. Some Reformed theologians spoke about grace or graciousness prior to the Fall, as Beeke and Jones documented a number of examples in which grace was discussed within the covenant of works. Most of these examples discuss either how God was not obligated to make the offer of reward in exchange for obedience or 125 J. B. Torrance, “Covenant or Contract? A Study of the Theological Background of Worship in Seventeenth Century Scotland,” SJT 23 (1970): 51–​69; Holmes Rolston III, John Calvin Versus the Westminster Confession (Richmond, VA: Westminster John Knox Press, 1972); Thomas F. Torrance, Scottish Theology: From John Knox to John McLeod Campbell (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 125–​53. 126 Michael D. Williams, “Adam and Merit,” Presbyterion 35, no. 2 (Fall 2009): 88. 127 Williams, “Adam and Merit,” 89. 128 Fesko, Westminster Standards, 138–​66, argued the Westminster Divines held merit and personal relationship to be compatible. 129 E.g., Rollock, Questions and Answers,  22–​24.

Development and Debates  111 how the reward of eternal life was incongruous with the condition of Adam’s obedience.130 Carl Trueman noted that John Owen discussed the formation of the covenant of works as “essentially gracious.”131 John Ball is often the representative of this view, even being frequently cited alongside Ussher as supposedly also having held that position.132 Ball argued that one type of covenant “signified a free Promise of God, but with stipulation of duty from the reasonable creature, which otherwise was due, no promise coming betwixt, and might have been exacted of God, and ought to have been performed of the creature, if God had so pleased.”133 This quote resembles many found in Reformed authors who wanted to move away from the idea that God owes a reward to obedience de facto.134 He saw disparity between the reward God offered and the obedience required to receive it. God kindly made a promise that committed him to this reward, so it was “exceeding gratious.” Ball denied that “merit” is the appropriate term for how Adam could have earned the reward. He did, however, argue that God’s covenant obligates him to reward man’s obedience and that this obligation is “strict justice.”135 Ball’s emphasis on God’s kindness to make any covenant with Adam was typically Reformed, but he still focused on strict justice and the condition of perfect obedience in the structure of the covenant of works.136 The initial formation of the works-​ based covenant was what he called gracious. Ussher did not refer to the covenant of works as gracious, but he did highlight its justice. The precise relationship of works and grace was crucial. Thomas prioritized grace over merit, but the Reformed still found his view unacceptable. Part of their problem with his view was that merit was essentially the same before and after the Fall, since grace enabled merit in both contexts. Even Ball, who emphasized the covenant’s gracious establishment, did not argue that grace was part of the covenant of works itself. Rather, he held, it rested

130 Beeke and Jones, Puritan Theology, 229–​32. 131 Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth:  John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Carlisle, PA: Paternoster, 1998), 126. 132 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 35–​ 79; Clark, “Christ and Covenant,” 423–​ 25; Fesko, Westminster Standards, 138–​58. 133 John Ball, A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace (1645), 3. 134 See, e.g., Rollock, Questions and Answers, 23–​24. WCF 7.1 clearly attached reward to covenant, but denied that God must reward obedience apart from covenant. 135 Ball, Treatise on the Covenant of Grace, 7–​10. For a similar, although later, discussion where an early modern theologian made a similar point but explicitly drew on the terminology of meritum ex pacto, see François Turrettini, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae, 3 vol. (Geneva,1679), 8.4.17. 136 On Ball, see MPWA, 2:237; Michael McGiffert, “Federal Theology,” in Francis J. Bremer and Tom Webster (eds.), Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-​CLIO, 2006), 2:395–​96.

112  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works on strict justice. A drastically different structure had characterized the medieval period. Congruent merit fueled the Franciscan Pactum: “God does not deny grace to those who do what is in them.”137 Reformed theologians recognized a disproportion between Adam’s required work and his promised reward, but still only “perfect and compleat” obedience was acceptable.138 This markedly differed from medieval theology, wherein grace preceded works to render imperfect works meritorious. Ussher did not link grace and the covenant of works. Woolsey’s claim that Ussher and Ball exemplified a common notion of a gracious covenant of works must be nuanced.139 Although Ball spoke that way, Ussher differed. Ussher may not have seriously objected to that language, but he conspicuously omitted it from his discussions of the pre-​Fall context. Rather, he spoke about God’s “favor” in the covenant of works.140 There is one arguable exception in his Oxford lectures from the 1640s, but there are good reasons to understand it otherwise. The best translation of the Latin phrase in question is “The penalty [of the covenant of works] is the loss of God’s favor.”141 “Favor” translates gratiae, which is often rendered “grace,” but not only is “favor” within the lexeme’s semantic range, it is actually the foundational meaning.142 Additionally, “favor” has decisive precedent in Ussher’s English-​ language writings. He wrote on the same topic in one of his manuscripts that the promise for keeping the command of God was “the continuance of his favour and everlasting life.”143 He retained this phrasing in publications.144 He clarified that “the promise of grace was hidden in God” during the covenant of works.145 Ussher took this phrase from Cartwright’s description of the law but explicitly reset it—​which shows his active constructive work on this specific portion of the book—​within the terminology of the covenant of works (which Cartwright lacked) and within the distinction between law and gospel: “How many covenants be there? Two: First, the Law and Covenant of works; Secondly, the free promise or Covenant of grace, which from the

137 Oberman, Harvest, 128–​34. More on Ussher’s explicit rejection of this category in Chapter 6. 138 Ball, Treatise on the Covenant of Grace, 11. 139 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity,  45–​52. 140 Ussher, Principles (1653), 10; Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 136. 141 Queen’s College, Oxford, MS 217, fol. 37v (Poena est privatio gratiae Dei). 142 Charlon T. Lewis and Charles Short (eds.), A New Latin Dictionary (New  York:  Harper & Brothers, 1891), 825–​26; Leo F. Stelten, Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 111. 143 TCD MS 291, fol. 14v. 144 Ussher, Principles (1645), 10; Ussher, Principles (1653), 10; Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 136. 145 Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 124.

Development and Debates  113 comming of Christ is called the Gospell. Rom. 10.5, 6. Gal. 3.11, 12. Which of them was first? The Law, for it was given to Adam in his integrity, when the promise of grace was hidden in God.”146 Ussher’s statements definitively excluded grace from the covenant of works, and the changes Ussher made to Cartwright’s material shows that he had integrated it into his own system in an original way. Although Ussher substantially agreed with Ball, he avoided the term “grace” for the pre-​Fall context. This illustrates that there were differences on this issue at least in expression, and that it was not a settled discussion among the early modern Reformed. As important as Ussher’s views were, only confessions were officially sanctioned church doctrine. Still, Robert Letham’s position that “the Westminster documents clearly affirm that grace was present before the fall” is at least misleading.147 He denied that any confessional document before Westminster had adopted the covenant of works, but the Irish Articles had included it more than thirty years prior, and Letham’s mistake here diminished that earlier confession’s importance.148 Moreover, his argument that “voluntary condescension” in the Westminster Confession “clearly” referred to pre-​Fall grace was rather strained.149 He conflated condescensio with other Latin terms for “grace” by arguing it “was closely related to gratia Dei . . . and to gratia communis,” but this argument fails by committing two linguistic fallacies.150 First, it assumed the entire semantic range can be present in each use of a word, which is simply not true. Second, it assumed that Latin and English cognates must mean essentially the same thing. In reality, “by some voluntary condescension” more resembles “by voluntary communion,” the phrase used in Chamier’s definition of merit by the covenant.151 That does not mean that the confession’s phrase refers to covenantal merit, but it does mean that Letham’s argument from the similarity of phrases utterly fails. The 146 Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 124; quoting Cartwright, Christian Religion, 68. Although Ussher lifted phrasing, both the 1611 and 1616 editions of Cartwright’s work show that he modified Cartwright’s answer to include explicit covenantal language. Ussher’s reworking of quoted material to fit his own purposes in A Body of Divnitie supports his authorship, and demonstrates that he edited material that he copied from Cartwright into a coherent text. Cartwright (1611): “Because it was before the Gospell, for it was given to Adam in his integritie, when the promise of grace was hidden in God.” This is identical to the 1616 edition, except for spelling variation (Cartwright, A Treatise of Christian Religion (1616), [86; incorrectly paginated as 74]). Ussher, Body of Divinitie: “The Law, for it was given to Adam in his integrity, when the promise of grace was hidden in God.” 147 Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly:  Reading Its Theology in Historical Context (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009), 232. 148 Letham, Westminster Assembly, 227; Irish Articles, sig. B2v (article 21). 149 WCF 7.1. 150 Letham, Westminster Assembly, 225–​26. 151 Chamier, Panstratiae Catholicae, 3:241 (ex voluntate communi).

114  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works divines likely chose “voluntary condescension” precisely because grace terminology was disputed, and, at the very least, the second confession to advocate the covenant of works did not “clearly” include grace in it.152 Theologians could have read grace into the confession, but the words did not require it, which means Ussher’s view remained within the purview of the confessional mainstream. Ussher definitely emphasized merit in the work of Christ.153 That is not surprising or controversial in terms of Christology, but his equating of merit with Christ’s perfect obedience is enlightening. Christ’s priesthood included “yeelding that perfect obedience whereupon dependeth the whole merit of our salvation.”154 Further, he continued, “the righteousnesse of Christ is compleat and perfect,” and “we are made partakers of Christ and all his merits by faith.”155 He readily applied merit to Christ’s work as mediator, but he also connected merit directly to Christ’s federal role as the second Adam.156 He defined the first Adam’s role in the same terms: “The Law, or the covenant of workes: whereby God promiseth everlasting life unto man, upon condition that he perform intire and perfect obedience unto his law, according to that strength wherewith he was indued by vertue of his creation, and in like sort threateneth death unto him, if he do not perform the same.”157 Two things are striking about these statements. First, Ussher described Adam’s charge in the covenant of works with the same terms he used to define merit. At least in substance, Ussher thought that Adam could potentially merit, or earn, within the terms of the covenant of works. He did not think obedience de facto earned a reward if Adam fulfilled the law: “Againe, if Adam had done all things which were commanded him, hee must for all that have sayd: I am an unprofitable servant; I have done that which was my dutie to doe.”158 Once God set the terms, however, Adam could meet that condition and so

152 This is supported by the conclusions of Mark A. Herzer, “Adam’s Reward: Heaven or Earth?,” in Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (eds.), Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism (Göttingen: V&R, 2011), 179–​80. 153 Irish Articles, sig. C1r (article 34). 154 Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 170. 155 Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 196, 191. 156 Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 194–​95. 157 Ussher, Principles (1653), 71–​72. Whereas the 1645 edition read “indued by nature of his creation,” Ussher revised the language in 1653 to say “strength wherewith he was indued by virtue of his creation”; Ussher, Principles (1645), 64. Although Ussher decided to clarify his terms, he rejected the Catholic donum superadditum in both versions. Adam could keep God’s law sufficiently to receive reward without any assistance from God beyond the faculties built into human nature. 158 James Ussher, Immanuel of the Mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God (Dublin, 1638), 26; Ussher, Answer, 498; Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 195.

Development and Debates  115 earn the reward by just recompense. The second striking thing about this quotation is that Ussher argued Adam was to fulfill the law in the covenant of works “according to that strength wherewith he was endued by vertue of his creation.”159 Ussher also used this formula preaching in 1643–​44, saying that Adam should “serve God according to that strength he first enabled him with, that he might live thereby.”160 Adam required only the natural abilities God already gave him to fulfill his task and earn reward. Ussher believed the Fall took away what “was natural to him Before his fall.”161 As this and Chapter 2 demonstrated, Ussher’s emphasis was always on Adam’s natural ability to fulfill the covenant, and his concern to avoid the structure of the Catholic donum superadditum shaped this rhetoric. Woolsey’s argument that the pre-​Fall covenant was “gracious” again needs to be nuanced. He did distinguish this kind of “grace” from that related to redemption, but Ussher did not use the term in this twofold way.162 He viewed unfallen Adam as being able to attain reward by achieving strict perfection by means of his own strength. The way he discussed how believers inherit blessing in the covenant of grace was very different.163 Ussher’s descriptions of Adam’s natural state and the relationship between works and reward indicate the complexity of the topic of merit. As we have seen, the terminology is somewhat inconsequential, since the substantial issue is Adam’s ability to render obedience by natural strength to obtain the promised blessing. Ussher preached, “God created Him in Righteousnes, and Holy, and able to performe the Covenant,” and “The Performance of this Covenant must bee natural.”164 Woolsey correctly concluded that within this stream of the Reformed tradition, “man could ‘merit’ the continuance of life by his [Adam’s] obedience. By his conformity to God’s revealed will, he could claim the promised reward as his due wage.”165 The point was to emphasize Adam’s ability to earn the reward in the covenant of works. He modified Thomas’ definition of merit and used it to exclude congruent merit and the donum superadditum. Ussher’s integration of covenantal and legal categories

159 Ussher, Principles (1653), 71–​72. 160 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 76 (sermon on Galatians 3:22). 161 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 27v (sermon on Genesis 6:5, dated July 31, 1642). 162 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 45–​52,  73–​79. 163 Ussher, Principles (1653), 15–​17, 83–​88; Ussher, Principles (1645), 15–​18, 75–​79; Ussher, A Body of Divinitie, 158–​59. 164 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 228r, fol. 229r (sermon on Galatians 3:12, dated June 29, 1651). 165 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 75.

116  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works into explanations of the covenant of works was an important contribution to the development of the doctrine.

Relation of the Mosaic Covenant to the Covenant of Works Ussher’s doctrines of natural law, the covenant of works, and the Mosaic covenant were situated within seventeenth-​ century debates. There was Reformed consensus by the end of the sixteenth century that the Old and New Testaments revealed the single plan of salvation, in which people were rescued from the penalties of sin by faith alone. People who lived before and after Christ were justified in the same way. There was debate later in the seventeenth century between the Cocceians and the Voetians about the nature of how the forgiveness of sins was applied in the Old Testament. This was a technical debate about New Testament terminology of “overlooking” (πάρεσις), questioning whether the penalty for sin had been actually paid before Christ came or whether the Old Testament saints merely had a guarantor who would pay that penalty once he arrived.166 Even in this debate, Christ was the agent of salvation in the Old and New Testaments. This premise of a unified method of salvation undergirded the covenant of grace. Covenantal terminology became standard fare in Reformed theology, even during the sixteenth century, as many studies have demonstrated.167 Complications arose, however, about how the one covenant of grace appeared differently in the Old and New Testaments. There were legitimate changes in the covenantal context of the people of God. The ritualistic system of worship in the Old Testament, commonly called the ceremonial law, was abolished because the work of Christ was understood to have fulfilled those rites. The 166 van Asselt, “Expromissio or Fideiusso?”; Brian J. Lee, Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology:  Reformation Developments in the Interpretation of Hebrews 7–​ 10 (Göttingen: V&R, 2009). 167 Perry Miller, The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century (New York: Macmillan, 1939); Jens G. Møller, “The Beginnings of Puritan Covenant Theology,” JEH 14, no. 1 (1963): 46–​67; Anthony A. Hoekema, “The Covenant of Grace in Calvin’s Teaching,” CTJ 2, no. 2 (Nov 1967):  133–​61; Geerhardus Vos, “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1980), 234–​67; J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980); Michael McGiffert, “William Tyndale’s Conception of Covenant,” JEH 32, no. 2 (April 1981): 167–​84; John von Rohr, The Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001); R. Scott Clark, Casper Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant: The Double Benefit of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: RHB, 2008); Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 253–​441; Beeke and Jones, Puritan Theology, 259–​78.

Development and Debates  117 theocracy of Israel and the accompanying government expired because the gospel was to advance to all nations. Reformed thinkers had to make sense of these changes and explain the precise nature of the Mosaic covenant, which had a preeminent focus on the law. They had to decide what this meant about the nature of grace in the Old Testament, and they disagreed about how to explain the Mosaic covenant.168 Ussher held that the Decalogue reflected the natural law and that the Mosaic covenant in some way repeated the covenant of works. Perkins distinguished between the covenants of works and grace, but not in the same way as those writing about pre-​and post-​Fall situations. “The two Testaments are the Covenant of workes, and the Covenant of grace, one promising life eternall to him that doth al things contained in the law: the other to him that turnes and beleeves in Christ.”169 These remarks about the covenant of works actually referred to the Mosaic covenant, not to a covenant with Adam. Perkins associated the covenant of works primarily with the Mosaic covenant, even though he advocated that the covenant of works was parallel to and mutually exclusive with the covenant of grace. The Mosaic covenant represented a different approach to salvation than the covenant of grace, but this way was entirely hypothetical and could never achieve eternal life. Ussher appropriated Perkins’ link between the covenant of work and Moses, but their views were not identical. Ussher thought the Mosaic covenant was “a solemne repetition and declaration of the first Covenant of the Law.”170 Ussher repeated this language 168 Willem J. van Asselt, “Christ, Predestination, and Covenant in Post-​Reformation Reformed Theology,” in Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 223; Christopher Earl Caughey, “Puritan Responses to Antinomianism in the Context of Reformed Covenant Theology, 1630–​1696,” PhD diss., Trinity College, Dublin, 2013; Brenton C. Ferry, “Works in the Mosaic Covenant: A Reformed Taxonomy,” in Bryan D. Estelle, J. V. Fesko, and David VanDrunen (eds.), The Law Is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009), 76–​105. 169 WWP 2:299 (commentary on Galatians 4:24–​25). 170 Ussher, Principles (1653), 117. There was actually an exact match here to the phrasing of A Body of Divinitie. Q. What were the special properties of the latter of these two Periods? A. First, it was more especially restrained unto a certaine Family and Nation. Secondly, it had joyned with it a solemne repetition and declaration of the first Covenant of the Law. Thirdly, besides the Ceremonies (which were greatly inlarged under Moses) it had Sacraments also added unto it. Luk. 1:54, 55. Psa. 147.19, 20. Rom. 9.4 & 13, 17. Deu. 4.1, 6, 7, 8, 37 & 7.6, 7, 48 & 14.2 & 28.18, 19. Jeh. 1.17. Ex. 24.7, 8. Deut. 4.12, 13 & 5.2, 5 & 27.26. Rom 10.5. Act. 7.44, 45, 46, 47. Heb. 9.1, 2, 3. (Ussher, Principles [1653], 116–​17; this is virtually unchanged from Ussher, Principles [1645], 109.) Q. What were the special properties of the last of these two periods? A. First, it was more specially restrained unto a certaine Family and Nation. Secondly, it had with it solemne repetition, and declaration of the first covenant of the Law. Thirdly, besides ceremonies, which were greatly inlarged under Moses, it had Sacraments also added

118  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works frequently, arguing that the works principle somewhat muted the gospel under Moses: Second, the old ministry had a solemn repetition of the first covenant joined with it, with ample declaration of it. Third, accordingly, the gospel covenant was displayed sparsely and obscurely in that the promises concerning Christ were handed down in such a general and obscure way, as the manifestation of those promises was far off.171

The same point appeared as well in A Body of Divinitie: “Secondly, it had with it solemne repetition, and declaration of the first covenant of the Law.”172 In his 1643–​44 lectures in Oxford he referred to the old covenant as “sparse with respect to grace, which complies with the repetitions of the covenant of law, and is obscure in as much as it concerned things that would happen in the future, and because the shadowy administration is carnal and figurative.”173 In a sermon on Adam’s Fall, he used the golden calf event at Sinai to illustrate Adam’s rebellion. Both events resulted in nakedness that brought shame upon the offenders. “In that great Rebellion of the people of Israel in making A golden calfe, 32. Exod. 24. 25. Moses saw that the people were naked (for Aron had made them naked unto their shame among their Enemies) naked of all Spiritual Good and glory: naked of Gods Protection.”174 Ussher supported the correspondence between the covenant of works and the Mosaic covenant by mirroring Adam’s Fall and its results with the sin of Israel at Sinai. This illustration also shows that he related Adam and Moses beyond just the focus on law, paralleling the formation of the Mosaic covenant and its first violation with the Fall in Eden. This indicates that he saw historical, not just theoretical, reverberations of Eden in the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic covenant

unto it. Luk. 1.54, 55. Psal. 44.19, 26. Rom. 9.4. Act. 13.17. Deut. 4.1, 6, 7, 8 & 37.1, 6, 7, 8, 14 & 2.26.18, 19. [sic] Ioh. 1.16, 17. Exod. 24.7, 8. Deut. 4.12. Rom. 10.5. Heb. 9.1, 2, 3. Joh. 7.22.” (Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 409.) 171 TCD MS 287, fol. 104r (Secundò; cu[m]‌eo solemnem primi foederis repetitionem conjunctam habuit; cu[m] ampla eiusdem declaratione. Tertio; secundu[m] foedus evangelii parcius et obscuri[us] proponebatur; dum promissiones de Christo tantō generalius et obscuri[us] traderentur, quantò earumdem manifestatio esset remot[um]). 172 Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 409. 173 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 39v (Haec tota est gra[ti]ae parcior. obsequentiores repititiones foed[e]‌ris legis. et obscurior quà tantum de rebus futuris et quia umbratilis carnalis et Typica est). 174 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 25r (sermon on Genesis 3:7–​15, dated July 17, 1642).

Development and Debates  119 formed a situation similar to that under the covenant of works, and the two historical epochs illustrated each other. Ussher prioritized the law in the covenant of works and highlighted the Mosaic covenant’s emphasis on the law as well. As Jonathan Willis demonstrated, “God’s commandments issued in the Decalogue were therefore commonly accepted as a clear and compelling statement of the divine will, issued not once but over and over again in different forms for the benefit of humanity.”175 The Mosaic covenant renewed the statements of the natural law, and also repeated the law’s demands for perfect obedience would be rewarded with eternal life.176 Ussher explained these links between the natural law and the Decalogue in terms of the transitions in redemptive-​history in the Body: How many covenants be there? Two: First, the Law and Covenant of works; Secondly, the free promise or Covenant of grace, which from the comming of Christ is called the Gospell. Rom. 10.5, 6. Gal. 3.11, 12. Which of them was first? The Law, for it was given to Adam in his integrity, when the promise of grace was hidden in God. How so, since it is said that the Law was first given to Moses? That is to be understood of the written Law, as it was written by Moses, and ingraven in tables of stone by the finger of God, otherwise the same was imprinted in the beginning in the hearts of our first parents, and therefore it is called the Law of nature, Rom. 2.14. How was this Law given unto Adam in the beginning? It was chiefly written in his heart at his creation, and partly also uttered in his eare in Paradise; for unto him was given a will both to good and also to evill, and also to be inclined thereto with ability to perform it. There was something likewise outwardly revealed, as his duty to God in the sanctification of the Sabbath, to his neighbor in the institution of marriage, and to himselfe in his dayly working about the garden. 175 Jonathan Willis, The Reformation of the Decalogue: Religious Identity and the Ten Commandments in England, c. 1485–​1625 (Cambridge: CUP, 2017), 28. 176 Regarding natural law, Ussher taught, “The law is that which they were initially instructed by the help of nature and creation, and the blessings they received made them fit to render all that must be rendered.” Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 36r (Ea est quâ naturae et creationis beneficio imbuebantur et ad quam praestandam donis ita acceptis facti errant idonei).

120  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works How hath the Morall Law been delivered since the fall? The summe thereof was comprised in ten words, Exod. 34.28. Deut. 4.13. commonly called the Decalogue or ten Commandements, solemnly published and engraved in tables of stone by God himselfe, Deut. 10.4. Afterwards the same was more fully delivered in the books of holy Scripture, and so committed to the Church for all ages, as the Royall Law for direction of obedience to God our King; Jam. 2.8. and for the discovery of sin and punishment due thereto. Deut. 27.26. Rom. 1.31. & 3.20.177

Ussher further linked “the righteousness of works” to both the covenant of works and the Mosaic covenant, “This righteousness is seen to have been outlined and illustrated in Paradise by the symbol of the tree of life, and later as well, the same law was explained by being attached in the Decalogue.”178 He cited Romans 5:14—​“Death raigned from Adam to moses, even over them also, that Sinned not after the like manner of the transgression of Adam”—​to show that death still had power over everyone from the time of Adam until the time of Moses because Adam had broken the law.179 In another sermon he taught, “In the first Covenant, If thou canst do that the Law commands, thou shalt be iustified by the Law. 10 Rom. 5. Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the man w[hi]ch doth these things, shall live thereby.”180 He interpreted Romans 10:5 as containing a twofold reference to the covenant of works and the Mosaic covenant and repeated this exegesis in 1651, the last year he was able to preach: “The Covenant of the Law, And the Righteousnes of Faith: 10. Rom. 5.10. Moses describeth the Righteousnes w[hi]ch is of the Law, that the man that doth those things, shall live by them. But the Righteousnes w[hi]ch is of Faith, speaketh on this wise, with the Heart man Beleeveth unto Righteousnes: and with the mouth Confession is made unto Salvation.” In this same sermon, which focused on Galatians 3:12, he extensively drew on Galatians 4:21–​31 to explain the covenant of works through a description of the Mosaic covenant: Abraham had two Sonnes, the one by a Bond maide, the other by a free woman: but he who was of the Bond woman, was borne after the flesh: but 177 Ussher, Body, 124. 178 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 36r (operum iustitia and Haec iustitia in Paradise videtur symbolo arboris vitae adumbrata et illustrata fuisse, postea vero eadem Decalogo apti explicata est). 179 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 27r (sermon on Genesis 6:5, dated July 31, 1642). Ussher’s version here followed the translation of the Geneva Bible, which differed slightly from the King James Version; The Bible (1599), ad loc.; The Holy Bible (London, 1617), ad loc. (these printings were not paginated). 180 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 21v (sermon on Genesis 3:1, dated July 3, 1642).

Development and Debates  121 he of the free woman was by Promise: w[hi]ch things are an Allegory: for These are the Two Covenants:  the one from the mount Sinay, w[hi]ch gendreth to Bondage w[hi]ch is Agar: But Jerusalem w[hi]ch is above, is free, w[hi]ch is the mother of us all . . . And the Law is not of Faith, sayes my text: they are Two disctinct Covenants, that cannot possibly bee mingled By Both: Like the legs of Daniels Image, that were Part of Clay, and Part of Iron, that cannot bee mingled: 5 Galat. 4.181

He starkly contrasted the law and the gospel, at least when it came to the method of receiving rewards from God.182 He used the two-​ covenant model as a way to standardize the principle of inheritance and implement covenantal terms. This model links him to Perkins, but Ussher taught that the Mosaic covenant was a repetition of the covenant initiated with Adam at creation, not the covenant of works absolutely.183 Thus the law principle remained binding on all people, but it was no longer a viable way to eternal life. Ussher integrated covenantal categories far more than Perkins, and used them to explain order-​of-​salvation (ordo salutis) issues, as well as to bring new layers of understanding to the pedagogical purpose of Israel’s theocracy as it was mentioned in Galatians.184 Ussher’s formulation of the covenant of works was closer to that of Rollock than Perkins, and this similarity appears again concerning the Mosaic covenant. Rollock thought that “Moses certainly wrote the word about both covenants, both legal and evangelical. Truly, as it were, whereas the first lines of the evangelical covenant were considered, he vividly painted the legal covenant. Indeed, the legal covenant is openly pressed in the writings of Moses, but the evangelical covenant is obscure.”185 He also stated that the Mosaic covenant repeated the covenant of works: “Q. Was this covenant of works afterwards repeated? A. It was continually repeated from the creation and fall of man up until the coming of Christ.  .  .  . Afterwards, it was handed down and inscribed by Moses.”186 The role Ussher played in codification and 181 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 228r (sermon on Galatians 3:12, dated June 29, 1651). 182 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 365–​67 (sermon on Hebrews 4:16). 183 WWP 2:299 (commentary on Galatians 4:24–​25). 184 Ussher, Principles, 10–​11; Bodl. MS Rawl. D1290, fol. 7r; Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 32r. 185 Rollock, Vocatione Efficaci, 56 (Scripsit quidem Moses utriusque foederis verbum, & legalis, & Evangelici; verum cum foederis Evangelici lineamenta quasi quaedem prima duxerit, foedus legale ad vivum depinxit. In scriptis enim Moses aperte urgetur foedus legale, obscure vero foedus Evangelicum. Unde tota doctrina Mosis legalis vocata est. Lex per Mosen data est, Ioh. I). 186 Rollock, Questions and Answers, 25.

122  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works standardization of the covenant of works is clear here, as he echoed Rollock’s idea that the Mosaic covenant repeated the covenant of works, but added Perkins’ stronger emphasis on the works principle in the former. Ussher did not disagree with Rollock, but took ideas from him and Perkins and more thoroughly integrated them into his covenant scheme. Ussher’s sermonic exegesis of Galatians 4, cited earlier, evidences this. If Ussher had simply followed Rollock on the repetition of the covenant of works in Moses, the same exegetical conclusions would appear in Ussher’s sermon and Rollock’s work on the passage. Ussher embedded more discussion on the covenants and made far more integrated theological conclusions regarding the two covenants from this passage than did Rollock.187 Ussher’s role in codifying the covenant of works should be clear. Reformed thinkers explained how the Mosaic covenant relates to the one covenant of grace in a variety of ways.188 One explanation was a repetition, in some sense, of the covenant of works between God and Adam.189 Woolsey noted this as a common occurrence among the major formulators of covenant theology and identified this as a theme in Ussher’s theology.190 The exegetical strands mentioned in this section are noteworthy. Ussher’s use of Galatians and Romans furthered existing exegetical patterns found in Rollock and Perkins, both in connection to the covenant of works generally and regarding the Mosaic covenant specifically.191 Rollock especially used Galatians 3:10–​12 and Romans 10:5 to develop an exegetical basis for the covenant of works.192 Rollock, though he did teach that the Mosaic covenant repeated the first covenant, seemed to apply these verses only to the covenant of works.193 Ussher, however, expanded their reference to explain the Mosaic covenant as well.194 He did so by incorporating exegesis of Galatians 4, which was one of Perkins’ favored passages.195 This shows that he brought 187 Rollock, Galatas,  88–​90. 188 Sebastian Rehnman, “Is the Narrative of Redemptive History Trichotomous or Dichotomous? A  Problem for Federal Theology,” Dutch Review of Church History 80, no. 3 (2000):  296–​308; Mark Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” in Michael A.  G. Haykin and Mark Jones (eds.), Drawn into Controversie:  Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-​ Century British Puritanism (Göttingen: V&R, 2011), 183–​203; Ferry, “Works in the Mosaic Covenant,” 76–​105. 189 Muller, “Divine Covenants, Absolute and Conditional,” 33; Beeke and Jones, Puritan Theology, 293–​304. 190 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 65–​67, 280–​84, 429–​30, 450–​53, 466–​72, 522–​26. 191 Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 124; Muller, “Expressly Set Down,” 69–​71. 192 Muller, “Expressly Set Down,” 71; Rollock, Questions and Answers,  22–​23. 193 Rollock, Questions and Answers,  22–​26. 194 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 21v (sermon on Genesis 3:1, dated July 3, 1642); 228r (sermon on Galatians 3:12, dated June 29, 1651). 195 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 228r (sermon on Galatians 3:12, dated June 29, 1651); Muller, “Expressly Set Down,” 70.

Development and Debates  123 together various exegetical trajectories from multiple predecessors to further the codification of the covenant of works into an integrated covenant theology.196 Further, his reflection on the history of the covenants reveals serious thematic reflection on biblical theology.197 It could be surmised that Ussher first saw the works element of the Mosaic covenant emphasized by Perkins and then noticed its historical and theological parallels with Eden through further exegesis of Paul’s epistles. He recognized the principle of works in the historical narrative through the breaking of the covenant and then noticed its correspondence to Adam through the discussions in Romans and Galatians. Though some claimed this pattern was anachronistic harmonization of the system, it actually involved substantial development of exegetical trajectories.198 In one way, Ussher was not unique in this regard among seventeenth-​century thinkers, since versions of his view that Sinai repeated the covenant with Adam were commonly advanced.199 In another way, however, his advocacy was pivotal, first, because it accompanied his codification of the covenant of works in general, and second, because he developed the doctrine and its exegetical basis further than his predecessors. In this regard, Ussher stood aligned with Reformed thinkers like Thomas Cartwright and William Twisse on the law-​gospel distinction and with Perkins and Rollock about the Mosaic covenant expressing the covenant of works, which undermines John Tweeddale’s argument that John Owen’s view of the Mosaic covenant was more Lutheran.200 Owen may have disagreed with many Reformed theologians and agreed with some Lutherans about the exegesis of Hebrews 8:6–​13, but his view of the Mosaic covenant, although more nuanced, was remarkably similar to Ussher’s, even as Tweeddale described it.201 As we have seen, Ussher developed this view in conversation with Reformed exegetical trajectories (as Tweeddale showed also concerning Owen), which makes it unnecessary to call Owen’s view more Lutheran when versions of it were readily available in his own Reformed tradition. Brian Lee has shown that Reformed exegetes, 196 Muller, “Divine Covenants, Absolute and Conditional,” 32. 197 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 25r (sermon on Genesis 3:7–​15, dated July 17, 1642). 198 Capern, “Slipperye Times and Dangerous Dayes,” 56; Weir, Origins, 158. 199 Willis, Reformation of the Decalogue, 20–​28; Caughey, “Puritan Responses to Antinomianism”; Fesko, Westminster Standards, 138–​ 58; contra Crawford Gribben, John Owen and English Puritanism: Experiences of Defeat (New York: OUP, 2016), 63–​65. 200 John W. Tweeddale, John Owen and Hebrews:  The Foundations of Biblical Interpretation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2019), 137–​38, 143. 201 Tweeddale, John Owen and Hebrews, 123–​43; Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” 199–​202; Beeke and Jones, Puritan Theology, 294–​303.

124  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works including Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Gomarus, and Cocceius, worked with similar concerns when interpreting Hebrews 8, even if their conclusions were not identical to Owen’s.202 Indeed, Rollock commented on Hebrews 8:9: “It is said, accordingly, concerning that covenant which had been struck with the people from Mount Sinai through Moses between God and the people. This covenant was certainly legal, but not, on the other hand, by some obscure outward sign of the covenant of grace.”203 Regardless, Ussher taught the covenant of Sinai was a repetition of the covenant of works, and integrated this idea into his system of doctrine with more advanced theological and exegetical reflection than his forebears.

Conclusion Ussher’s career-​spanning works show an unchanging covenantal framework for creation, righteousness, justification, and eternal life. His wide use of the covenant of works reveals much about its importance in early modern Reformed theology. David Weir wrongly appropriated views of J. B. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance but correctly noted that the covenant of works was a crucial part of mature federal theology.204 McGiffert rightly argued that federalism came into its own and dominated the field of Reformed theology in the seventeenth century, but with the term “Perkinsian moment” he overstated Perkins’ role in the development of covenant theology. Perkins was important to early modern Reformed theology, but his use of covenantal terminology differed from that seen in later federalism. Rollock used the terms and shaped the ongoing development of covenant theology, particularly in the area of the two-​covenant structure.205 Ussher used these terms and categories and helped to bring them explicitly into the confessional mainstream of Reformed theology through the Irish Articles (1615). He continued to teach and promote the

202 Lee, Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology,  88–​92. 203 Robert Rollock, Analysis Logica in Epistolam ad Hebraeos (Edinburgh, 1605), 106–​7 (Loquitur itaque de foedere eo quod ictum est cum populo, ex monte Sina per Mosen, inter Deum & populum, Mediatorem. Fuit quidem illud foedus legale, sed non sive obscura aliqua significatione foederis gratuiti). 204 Weir, Origins, 1–​36; Torrance, “Covenant or Contract?” 51–​69; Torrance, Scottish Theology, 125–​53. 205 Denlinger, “Introduction,” 3–​9.

Development and Debates  125 covenant of works until his death, especially during the period when the Westminster Assembly met, helping to embed the doctrine more deeply within the confessional tradition.206 Perkins, Rollock, and Cartwright have all figured prominently in the thorough considerations of covenant theology from the English and Scottish perspective.207 The diversity between these theologians and the differences from Ussher should not be missed. They held very different ecclesiology, which proves there needs to be more room made for Reformed conformists. Further, these previous considerations of Perkins, Rollock, and Cartwright neglect the important Irish dimension. Rollock’s construction of the covenant of works may represent the high point of the development of covenant theology, but Ussher codified that doctrine within the Reformed tradition. He was not alone in emphasizing the Adamic covenant, but he composed the Irish Articles, which had a pivotal role in officially sanctioning the doctrine as an element of Reformed teaching. Although no other church officially received the Articles, there had been attempts to do so in England.208 Parliament tried to use the Articles to interpret what the Church of England was supposed to be.209 Members of Parliament proposed a bill to makes the Irish Articles authoritative alongside the Thirty-​ Nine Articles, but Charles ended Parliament before they could pass it.210 The Articles did become a primary source for the Westminster Confession.211 McGiffert’s “Perkinsian moment,” therefore, may actually be the “Ussherian moment,” and Ussher’s historical significance may revise our understanding of transnational influence, since English theologians have received the most attention concerning the covenant of works.212 Despite this attention, it could well be that English covenant theology actually spoke with an Irish accent.

206 Harrison Perkins, “The Westminster Assembly’s Probable Appropriation of James Ussher,” SBET 37, no. 1 (Spring 2019): 45–​63. 207 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 499–​539; Torrance, Scottish Theology, 125–​53; Beeke and Jones, Puritan Theology, 217–​320. 208 Stephen Hampton, “Confessional Identity,” 225; Ford, Ussher, 102; Alan Ford, “James Ussher and the Godly Prince in Early Seventeenth-​Century Ireland,” in Hiram Morgan (ed.), Political Ideology in Ireland, 1541–​1641 (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1999), 227. 209 John McCafferty, “Ireland and Scotland, 1534–​1663,” in Oxford History of Anglicanism, 251. 210 Ford, Ussher, 140. 211 Perkins, “The Westminster Assembly’s Probable Appropriation of James Ussher,” 45–​63; Muller, “Inspired by God,” 40–​42; Fesko, Westminster Standards, 60; Alexander F. Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly: Its History and Standards (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1884), 372–​ 85; Letham, Westminster Assembly, 62–​83; Benjamin B. Warfield, The Westminster Assembly and Its Work (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1959; repr. Still Waters Revival Books, 1991), 59. 212 E.g., Beeke and Jones, Puritan Theology, 217–​36.

4 The Covenant of Works and Predestination Introduction James Ussher held a robust doctrine of predestination in tandem with his covenant theology, and the intersection of these doctrines allowed Ussher to support other doctrines with the covenant of works. Whereas Chapters 2 and 3 looked at how Ussher shaped the covenant of works within various theological trajectories, this chapter and Chapters 5 and 6 examine how he explained other theological topics in reference to the covenant of works. The Protestant church in early seventeenth-​century Ireland fell within the Reformed tradition, as the predestinarian Irish Articles show.1 Heightening tensions in the seventeenth century made predestination a pressure point among politicians and theologians.2 Ussher remained predestinarian throughout his life, however, even during this time when it was a politically charged doctrine, which again shows the staunchly Reformed commitments of some conformist clergy.3 The mere bifurcation between puritan and Anglican no longer explains the historical data because Reformed theologians occupied the conforming camp as well as the dissenting.4 It could be that the Laudians were actually the most radically dissenting group, as they suppressed the latent Reformed tendencies in English divinity through royal power.5 Ussher, however, exemplified a conformist strategy of theological resistance. 1 Hampton, “Confessional Identity,” in Anthony Milton (ed.), The Oxford History of Anglicanism, vol. 1: Reformation and Identity, c. 1520–​1662 (Oxford: OUP, 2017), 210–​27; John McCafferty, “Ireland and Scotland, 1534–​1663,” in Oxford History of Anglicanism, 243–​65; Diarmaid MacCulloch, “The Church of England and International Protestantism, 1530–​1570,” in Oxford History of Anglicanism, 316–​32. 2 Anthony Milton, “Unsettled Reformation, 1603–​1662,” in Oxford History of Anglicanism,  63–​83. 3 Hampton, “Confessional Identity,” 217–​27. 4 Peter Lake, “ ‘Puritans’ and ‘Anglicans’ in the History of the Post-​Reformation English Church,” in Oxford History of Anglicanism, 352–​79; Stephen Hampton, Anti-​Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I (Oxford: OUP, 2008), 1–​38; Stephen Hampton, “The Manuscript Sermons of Archbishop John Williams,” JEH 62, no. 4 (2011): 707–​25; Stephen Hampton, “Richard Holdsworth and the Antinomian Controversy,” JTS 62, no. 1 (April 2011): 218–​50; Stephen Hampton, “Confessional Identity,” 210–​27. 5 Peter Lake, “Anti-​Puritanism: The Structure of a Prejudice,” in Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake (eds.), Religious Politics in Post-​Reformation England (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 2006), 80–​97; David Catholicity and the Covenant of Works. Harrison Perkins, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197514184.001.0001

Predestination  127 Ussher’s doctrine of predestination discloses more about seventeenth-​ century covenant theology, since previous scholarship contended that covenant theology mitigated the doctrine of predestination in Reformed theology.6 Ussher, however, believed in both. Although Ussher’s theology developed over time, as Richard Snoddy demonstrated, some aspects remained stable.7 Covenant theology and predestination were two of these stable aspects. Ussher expressed the compatibility of predestinarianism and covenant theology by using covenants to explain the historical execution of God’s eternal decree. Further, Richard Muller noted the need for further examination of the “covenantal or federal continuity with Reformed predestinarianism” precisely in reference to hypothetical-​ universalist theologians like Ussher.8 This chapter examines how Ussher taught predestination in relation to covenant theology to demonstrate that hypothetical universalism—​examined in Chapter 5—​did not dilute either doctrine. This argument underscores how doctrinal fluidity in the early modern period defies generalizations. This chapter’s first section situates predestinarian debates in the political context of seventeenth-​century Ireland and England. The second section relates Ussher’s view of the Fall to predestination, which again highlights the importance of Adam’s federal role, and shows more of Ussher’s connections to the intellectualist tradition. The third section looks at how Ussher explained predestination within seventeenth-​century debates. This discussion positions him within the spectrum of early modern predestinarian teaching. The following section analyzes the historical significance and political ramifications of Ussher’s publishing and preaching on predestination. The last section deals with the explicit intersection of election and covenant theology. This analysis indicates the compatibility of Ussher’s doctrine of

R. Como, “Predestination and Political Conflict in Laud’s London,” HJ 46, no. 2 (2003):  263–​94; Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, “The Ecclesiastical Policies of James I and Charles I,” in Kenneth Fincham (ed.), The Early Stuart Church, 1603–​1642 (Hong Kong: Macmillan, 1993), 44–​47; Nicholas Tyacke, “Archbishop Laud,” in Early Stuart Church, 51–​70; Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism, c. 1590–​1640 (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1987), 181–​244. 6 J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980), xxi–​xxii, 27, 48, 186, 200–​215; David A. Weir, The Origins of Federal Theology in Sixteenth-​Century Reformation Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 63–​64. 7 Richard Snoddy, The Soteriology of James Ussher: The Act and Object of Saving Faith (New York: OUP, 2014), 40–​232. 8 Richard A. Muller, “Divine Covenants, Absolute and Conditional: John Cameron and the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology,” MAJT 17 (2006): 36.

128  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works predestination with his view of the covenant of works and reveals that he consistently taught both throughout his career.

Predestination and “Puritans” in Historical Context The doctrine of predestination had an important role in the seventeenth-​ century English church. After the Church of England split from the Roman communion, its identity was in question and its official doctrine was not instantly fully Protestant, although its connections to Continental Reformed churches increasingly fostered acceptance of predestinarian doctrine within the establishment.9 Prominent English divines, such as William Perkins, were predestinarian, and James I’s delegation to the Synod of Dort (1618–​19) “was an apparently definitive manifestation of the Church’s Reformed identity.”10 Charles I’s accession in 1625, however, marked a foreboding turn for predestinarians in the established church.11 This turn against predestinarianism is most prominently seen through the work of William Laud (1573–​1645), who became archbishop of Canterbury in 1633.12 The suppression of predestinarian theology was a contentious point of Laud’s regime, as his appointment to archbishop was a victory for militant “Arminian” opponents of predestinarian thought. Despite a basic “Calvinist consensus” in the English church, the Laudians, with Charles’ backing, suppressed and marginalized predestinarian advocates within the

9 Ethan H. Shagan, “The Emergence of the Church of England, c. 1520–​1553,” in Oxford History of Anglicanism, 28–​44; Anthony Milton, “Attitudes Towards the Protestant and Catholic Churches,” in Oxford History of Anglicanism, 333, 339; Anthony Milton, Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought, 1600–​1640 (Cambridge: CUP, 2002); Dewey D. Wallace Jr., Puritans and Predestination: Grace in English Protestant Theology, 1525–​1695 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982). 10 Milton, “Attitudes,” 336; J. V. Fesko, “Lapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dort,” in Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (eds.), Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism (Göttingen:  V&R, 2011), 102–​7; W. B. Patterson, William Perkins and the Making of Protestant England (Oxford: OUP, 2014); W. Brown Patterson, “Richard Hooker and William Perkins: Elizabethan Adversaries or Allies?,” in W. Bradford Littlejohn and Scott N. Kindred-​Barnes (eds.), Richard Hooker and Reformed Orthodoxy (Göttingen:  V&R, 2017), 61–​71; Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 129–​71; Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids, MI: RHB, 2012), 117–​31. 11 Richard Cust, Charles I: A Political Life (Hong Kong: Pearson Longman, 2005), 133–​47; Arnold Hunt, The Art of Hearing:  English Preachers and Their Audiences, 1590–​1640 (Cambridge:  CUP, 2010), 372–​85. 12 Tyacke, “Archbishop Laud,” 51–​ 70; Charles Carlton, Archbishop William Laud (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987), 86–​213.

Predestination  129 ecclesiastical hierarchy.13 Laud and Charles agendized royal supremacy, targeting predestinarian preaching because they worried it disturbed that agenda. Their targeting of this preaching meant that advocating predestination became political and had consequences that included fines and imprisonment.14 Charles feared threats to his position, but his heavy-​handed approach “convinced so many of Charles’s subjects that his regime was a danger to the liberties of the subjects.”15 Ironically, Charles’ efforts to protect his power led to civil war and, indirectly, his own execution. Ussher’s historical context, therefore, was a high-​pressure moment for those who believed that God’s sovereign choice undergirds salvation, and Ussher’s commitment to God’s sovereignty in difficult circumstances certifies his Reformed credentials even as a conformist. Ussher, although committed to Reformed views of salvation and the sacraments, did sustain a cordial relationship with Laud, but that did not mean he preferred Laud or his policies.16 Laud’s supporters hijacked Ussher’s authority as archbishop, especially by imposing the Thirty-​Nine Articles on the Irish church in 1634.17 Ussher conducted friendly business with Laud for the sake of his cause, but the relationship seemingly remained precarious.18 Despite these difficult circumstances, Ussher maintained his defense of predestinarian theology and developed unique arguments to support it. Snoddy rightly identified Ussher as an experimental predestinarian, meaning Ussher emphasized the need to recognize marks of God’s electing work in daily life—​such as genuine faith in Christ and faith-​evidencing good deeds—​over God’s abstract decree about election.19 Snoddy did not focus on Ussher’s historiographical works in connection to predestination, which means that, even though Snoddy’s assessment of the material he did consider was accurate, further layers can be added to our understanding of Ussher’s teaching on predestination—​namely, his use of historiographical arguments. Ussher may not have explored election and reprobation abstractly as he spoke to God’s people, but he still 13 Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists; Como, “Predestination and Political Conflict,” 263–​66. 14 Como, “Predestination and Political Conflict,” 272. 15 Como, “Predestination and Political Conflict,” 269. 16 Amanda-​Louise Capern, “The Caroline Church: James Ussher and the Irish Dimension,” HJ 39 (1996): 57–​85. 17 R. Buick Knox, “Caroline Trio:  Ussher, Laud, and Williams,” CQR 164, no. 353 (October–​ December 1963): 444; R. Buick Knox, “Ussher and the Church of Ireland,” CQR 161, no. 339 (April–​ June 1960): 153–​54; Capern, “Caroline Church,” 76, disproved Knox’s claims that Ussher essentially trusted Laud (Knox, “Caroline Trio,” 452). 18 Alan Ford, James Ussher: Theology, History, and Politics in Early-​Modern Ireland and England (Oxford: OUP, 2007), 203–​7. 19 Snoddy, Soteriology, 215–​22, 234.

130  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works protected those doctrines and theologians’ rights to believe and teach them. He divided that labor between an experimental approach to preaching predestination, as Snoddy demonstrated, and a more doctrinal approach in the theological and historical tasks of explaining God’s decree. Ussher’s comments on election and reprobation per se demonstrate this, but so does his explanation of the fallen human nature and effectual calling.

Ussher on Human Freedom The freedom and bondage of human faculties was always closely intertwined with predestination in Protestant theology. Martin Luther (1483–​1546) and John Calvin (1509–​1564) both wrote tracts on this topic, showing it was crucial even in the Reformation’s early stages.20 It remained pivotal in the Post-​ Reformation period, and Ussher had his say on the matter. This issue shows that Reformed thinkers were concerned not to impugn God as responsible for sin. The debate circled around how God can remain guiltless in predestining everything that comes to pass, and Protestants labored to reconcile God’s sovereignty with human responsibility. Ussher ascribed humanity’s need for salvation to their fallen state, which had a perverting influence on all their abilities. In Principles of the Christian Religion, he outlined six principal ways original sin corrupted human nature. The first two corruptions related to the powers of the mind: “the blindnesse of the Understanding; which is not able to conceive the things of God,” and “the forgetfulnesse of the Memory; unfit to remember good things.” The third corruption was “the rebellion of the Will; which is wholly bent to sin, and altogether disobedient unto the will of God.”21 This corrupted version of a person’s mind and will radically differed from the upright condition in which God made them though, and Ussher clearly differentiated the original state: Q. In what regard is man said to be made according to the likenesse and image of God? A. In regard especially of the perfections of the powers of the soule; namely, the wisdom of the mind, and the true holinesse of his free-​will.22 20 Martin Luther, De Servo Arbitrio (Wittenberg, 1525); John Calvin, Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de servitute et liberatione humani arbitrii (Geneva, 1543). 21 James Ussher, The Principles of Christian Religion (1653), 13; identical to Ussher, The Principles of Christian Religion (1645), 12–​24. He omitted John 1:13 as a proof in 1653. 22 Ussher, Principles (1653), 69.

Predestination  131 Ussher said the mind and will had their own perfections before the Fall corrupted them, and, as previous chapters demonstrated, this initial integrity was crucial to Ussher’s understanding of the covenant of works. The mind’s darkened state and the will’s bondage were neither inherent in human nature nor deficiencies of human finitude, and those corruptions conflicted with and distorted the way God had made humanity. Ussher’s concern for these issues was notable in his 1624 work against Jesuit theologian William Malone (1585–​1655), An Answer to a Challenge Made by a Jesuite in Ireland, wherein he addressed eleven topics that were disputed between Roman Catholics and Protestants, and argued that the Protestant views were not only biblically defensible but also the early church’s views. He did present exegetical cases, but leaned more on quotations from patristic sources to show their agreement with Protestant positions, and he intended this kind of argument to nullify the notion that Protestantism lacked continuity with the church before Luther. Under the topic of free will, he first outlined his differences from Malone’s Jesuit view and then defined how he understood the freedom of human faculties. People act by more than “brute instinct of nature,” yet without compulsion, and a person deliberates according to reason: The Minde first taking into consideration the grounds and circumstances of each action, & freely debating on eyther side what in this case were best to be done or not done; and then the Will inclining itselfe to put in execution the last and conclusive judgement of the practicall Understanding. This libertie we acknowledge a man may exercise in all actions that are within his power to doe: whether they be lawful, or indifferent; whether done by the strength of nature or of grace for even in doing the workes of grace, our free-​will suspendeth not her action, but being moved and guided by grace, doeth that which is fit for her to doe: grace not taking away the libertie, which cometh by Gods creation, but the pravitie of the Will, which ariseth from Mans corruption.23

Ussher saw two factors involved in the freedom of human faculties. First, the will acts on the last judgment of the mind, which again shows the intellect’s priority over the will, and Ussher’s first consideration was always the faculty of understanding:  “To will Is the fruite of the understandinge.”24 Second,

23 James Ussher, An Answer to a Challenge Made by a Jesuite in Ireland (Dublin, 1624), 464–​65.

24 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 213v (sermon on Ephesians 1:11, dated March 23, 1650 [1651]).

132  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works although people reason without compulsion, there are limitations to what human faculties can actually do, and Ussher used this point to distinguish human capacities before and after the Fall: “Since the fall of Adam wee say further, that freedome of Will remayneth still among men; but the abilitie which once it had, to performe spiritual duties and things pertaining to salvation, is quite lost and extinguished.”25 He thought, in other words, that Adam’s Fall short-​circuited the strength of the human will to choose the things God would have us do. Ussher argued historically that the Roman Catholic view, espoused by the Council of Trent and by the Jesuit theologians of his day, was less aligned with the historical position of the church than the Reformed view. He enlisted Augustine’s debate with the Pelagians to prove his view’s catholicity, affirming with Augustine that human nature is “wounded” and needs grace that is “the infusion of a new qualitie of holinesse into the soule, whereby it was regenerated, and the will of evill made good.”26 Pelagians, he argued, thought that people still had adequate faculties even after the Fall to perform good works that merit God’s favor, and they thought that even the forgiveness of sins was a grace granted according to merits.27 In contrast to this view, he maintained with Augustine “that Grace goeth before, and worketh the will unto good:  which he [Augustine] strongly proveth, both by the word of God and by the continuall practice of the Church, in her prayers and thanksgivings for the conversion of unbeleevers.”28 His point was that Malone and the Roman church generally had deviated from the truly catholic position. Further, he said, in addition to biblical exegesis, the continual practice of the church to thank God for the conversion of unbelievers demonstrates God’s sovereign intervention in giving someone new life, since if God is thanked for the conversion, he must be responsible for it.29 Ussher thought his Jesuit opponent could not consistently affirm this point. In 1625, the year after Ussher published Answer to . . . a Jesuite, Richard Montagu (d. 1641) released his controversial Appello Caesarem and, interestingly, cited Ussher to support his view of the will. He apparently quoted Ussher to the effect that free will essentially belongs to a person “as reason it selfe,” making it a non-​negotiable feature of humanity.30 As Alan Ford noted,

25 Ussher, Answer, 465. 26 Ussher, Answer, 474.

27 Ussher, Answer, 475–​78. 28 Ussher, Answer, 483. 29

James Ussher, Eighteen Choice Sermons Preached in Oxford (1662), 404–​6 (sermon on John 1:12).

30 Richard Montagu, Apello Caesarem (1625), 104.

Predestination  133 however, the citation was decontextualized, and most readers saw that he was trying to finagle Ussher’s reputation—​apparently a common Laudian tactic, but Montagu’s citation shows that Ussher’s name was a valuable commodity and further evidences his eminent standing among his peers.31 Jay Collier has recently mounted a case that Montagu was not an outright Arminian but held a minority interpretation of Augustine concerning whether true faith could be lost. Still, even if Collier was correct, Montagu’s views did result in controversy at Cambridge, with Ussher’s longtime friend Samuel Ward becoming Montagu’s leading opponent.32 Ussher corresponded with Ward during this time, clearly siding with the Reformed who endorsed the rulings of the Synod of Dort against Montagu.33 He also preached a sermon to the king in 1625 criticizing the proclamation against predestinarian ideas.34 Ussher’s actions undoubtedly cast aspersion upon Montagu’s efforts to enlist him in support of his views, whether we consider them to be Reformed of a less Dortian sort or to be more fully Arminian.35 The previous considerations show that Ussher defended his view about the human faculties at the academic level in hopes of bringing credibility to the Protestant cause, particularly in Ireland, but he also advocated these ideas in his preaching ministry, which indicates that he did not consider these doctrines to be arcane notions disconnected from what people should actually know. In a sermon delivered in Oxford around 1643–​44 he said, “If when God calls us either to the doing of this, or leaving that undone, yet we are not moved, but continue in our evil wayes. What’s the reason of it? It’s because we harden our hearts against him.”36 He argued that if people refuse to have the Word engrafted into them, God will deny them eternal rest.37 His 31 Ford, Ussher, 139; Anthony Milton, “The Church of England, Rome, and the True Church: The Demise of a Jacobean Consensus,” in The Early Stuart Church, 203. 32 Jay T. Collier, Debating Perseverance:  The Augustinian Heritage in Post-​Reformation England (New  York:  OUP, 2018), 93–​ 123; cf. Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, 47–​ 51. Collier (rather silently) demurred from the strong arguments made in Tyacke’s and Peter Lake’s works about the nature of early modern religion in England, and depended instead on Peter White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War (Cambridge: CUP, 1992). The exact nature of Montagu’s position within the Reformed tradition is not important enough to the point here to pursue at length, since he was controversial either way and many of the Reformed themselves, rightly or wrongly, saw him as holding more Arminian views. 33 See especially the letter to Ward dated June 30, 1626, in The Correspondence of James Ussher, 1600–​1656, 3 vols., edited by Elizabethanne Boran (Dublin: Irish Manuscripts Commission, 2015), 1:369; Collier, Debating Perseverance,  59–​92. 34 James Ussher, A Briefe Declaration of the Universalitie of the Church of Christ (1629). 35 Collier, Debating Perseverance, 93–​123. 36 James Ussher, Eighteen Choice Sermons Preached in Oxford in the Time of the Wars Before His Late Majesty of Blessed Memory (1662), 2 (sermon on Hebrews 4:7). 37 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 3–​4 (sermon on Hebrews 4:7).

134  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works first point was that people increase their own guilt by being obstinate against God’s commands, and this opens them up to God’s wrath. His second point was that this kind of refusal to listen to God demonstrates that people need “grace to repent.” He reasoned that if people are hard against God’s Word, it is because they want to be, but they change when God leads them to accept the grace of repentance.38 Ussher preached God’s threats, therefore, because they actually might break through human hardness against God.39 He insisted that people must urgently come to God: “If thou resolve take to morrow, it is requisite that thou have 1. Space to repent, and 2. Grace to do it. Now neither of these are in thine own hands, if they were, thou hadst ground for farther delay. . . . In refusing God’s proffer, thou refusest him that hath thy life in his hand.”40 The listener must not delay because God may not act to grant repentance tomorrow. This balance of Reformed theology and pastoral rhetoric demonstrates again Ussher’s experimental predestinarianism.41 He argued that God must enable a person to repent, but he simultaneously used this Reformed soteriology to urge repentance in that moment. As he put it, “Repentance is not a thing at our own command.”42 His paradox was that sinners must repent quickly because their repentance can occur only when God gives them grace to do so. Ussher’s view of human faculties was not idiosyncratic in the seventeenth century, but, even within similar constructions about the need for God to convert sinners, there were nuanced differences. William Ames taught, similarly to Ussher, that the human will works as people “consider actions by the counsel of their own inward principle.”43 Ussher likewise described “the Minde first taking into consideration the grounds and circumstances of each action, & freely debating on eyther side what in this case were best to be done or not done.”44 Ames argued along similar lines as Ussher about the difference between human ability before and after the Fall: 43. The slavery of sin is that in which man truly is made captive under sin so that he does not have the ability to rise from it. Rom. 6:16, 17, 19, 20.

38 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 7 (sermon on Hebrews 4:7). 39 Ussher’s use of the covenant of works in preaching unto conversion is taken up in Chapter 6. 40 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 11–​2 (sermon on Hebrews 4:7). 41 Snoddy, Soteriology, 233–​36. 42 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 13 (sermon on Hebrews 4:7). 43 Guilielmum Amesium, Medulla of S.S. Theologiae ex Sacris literis (1629), 1.10.2 (adque intrinsecum principium suorum actuum habeant a consilio). 44 Ussher, Answer, 464–​65.

Predestination  135 44. Even though the liberty of the will, which is essential to human nature, remains, nevertheless, by means of this slavery in the state of sin the liberty which pertains to the perfection of human nature is not found except remote and dead, in which quality was that power for performing acts of spiritual good (for which reason they would be acceptable).45

Ames and Ussher both believed that human faculties were perfectly created but that the Fall incapacitated them, so they were no longer able to act in ways pleasing to God. There was no apparent influence between Ames and Ussher, but both had links to William Perkins, who defined free will as “a mixt power in the mind & will of man, wherby discerning what is good & what is evill, he doth accordingly choose or refuse the same.”46 The similarity between these theologians indicates the commonality between Ussher and other Reformed thinkers, but their statements about human faculties also raise the issue of intellectualist and voluntarist paradigms again. Ames’ and Ussher’s quotes show that both prioritized the mind’s decisions over the will’s choices, but Perkins seemed to focus on the will and said little about the mind’s role, at least in A Reformed Catholicke.47 The differences between intellectualists and voluntarists have been previously noted regarding their conceptions of God’s law, but here the difference concerns human functionality and whether the intellect or the will takes priority.48 Ussher’s and Ames’ arguments reveal their intellectualism—​for example, when Ussher preached that “the Will is Intellectus Extensus.”49 His point here gave clear priority to the intellect, making the will an executive function of the mind. Others in the Reformed tradition took a more voluntaristic stance, as Muller noted Calvin’s more voluntarist leaning, which placed him closer to Augustine and John Duns Scotus on the nature of faith. Calvin taught that “choice belongs to the will, including the choice to follow or disregard the intellect.”50 Ussher,

45 Amesium, Medulla, 1.12.43–​44 (43. Servitus peccati est, qua homo adeo captivus factus est sub peccato, ut exsurgendi ab eo non habeat potestatem. Rom 6.16, 17, 19, 20. 44. Per hanc servitutem sit, ut quamvis libertas arbitrii maneat, quae est hominis naturae essentialis, illa tamen libertas, quae pertinebat ad perfectionem humanae naturae, cujus proprietas fuit ista potestas actus exercendi spiritualiter bonos, & illa ratione gratos, in statu peccati non reperitur, nisi remota, & emortua). 46 WWP 1:558. 47 WWP 1:558–​61. 48 Richard A. Muller, “Fides and Cognitio in Relation to the Problem of Intellect and Will in the Theology of John Calvin,” in Unaccomodated Calvin:  Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (New York: OUP, 2001), 162. 49 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 5v (sermon on Romans 12:2, dated May 16, 1641). 50 Muller, “Fides and Cognitio,” 165, 162, and esp. 171.

136  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works conversely, argued that the will executes the understanding’s last judgment.51 These differing views of human functionality indicate the simultaneous unity and diversity of the Reformed tradition, as these thinkers held the same view that God had to act to bring sinners to faith, but they outlined this position upon different premises with varying emphasis on the mind or will. Ussher’s and Ames’ difference from Perkins and Calvin about the relationship between the mind and the will shows that the diversity within the Reformed tradition concerning the intellectualist and voluntarist paradigms does extend further than their explanations of the natural law, as was highlighted in Chapter 3. This discussion intersects with Ussher’s doctrine of the covenant of works in that it shows how the issues underlying his choice of formulations for the natural law and the question of Adam’s natural capacities extended beyond the narrow application to that one doctrine. As has been argued throughout this work, Ussher built his view of the covenant of works upon intellectualist premises, and this wider look into his theology demonstrates that the connections between his view of that covenant and the intellectualist paradigm were not coincidental. Ussher’s intellectualist viewpoint concerning human faculties again draws a connection between him and Thomas Aquinas, who has been presented throughout this study as the intellectualist exemplar.52 Thomas argued that “to believe is immediately an act of the intellect, because the object of that act is the true, which pertains properly to the intellect. Consequently faith, which is the proper principle of that act, must needs reside in the intellect.”53 In Aquinas’ view, as Muller has argued, “the intellect has priority over the will not only because it is the faculty that renders deliberative judgment but also because in its deliberation it is an active power capable of self-​motivation.”54 Ussher followed Thomas on his understanding of the priority of human faculties, which further underscores Ussher’s generally intellectualist viewpoint. Ussher’s commitment to preaching was not unique to Reformed theologians with intellectualist leanings, since intellectualists and voluntarists alike promoted the proclamation of Scripture. Still, Ussher’s own specific commitment certainly cohered well with his intellectualism, since words addressed the 51 Ussher, Answer, 464–​65. 52 Thomas Pink, “Freedom of the Will,” in John Marebon (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Philosophy (New York: OUP, 2012), 574–​75; Muller, “Fides and Cognitio,” 171. 53 ST, 2a2ae.4.2. More precisely, the intellect and will interacted as mutual influences; ST, 2a2ae.4.2, 2a2ae.4.1. He gave priority to the intellect in saving faith, though. 54 Richard A. Muller, Divine Will and Human Choice: Freedom, Contingency, and Necessity in Early Modern Reformed Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017), 133.

Predestination  137 mind and could be the instruments that enlightened the corrupted intellect. These points certainly mean that the narrative of Reformed theology should not cast Thomas as the villain. Reformed theologians may have selectively appropriated him, but it remains the case that some of them adopted views from him that drove a Protestant view of preaching, predestination, and the covenant of works. If the available alternatives were Thomism, Scotism, or Ockhamism, it should not be surprising that Thomas was often appropriated, since his views were often the most conservative and the most reflective upon the Scriptures.55 As we have seen, Ussher thought that the Fall damaged the human faculties so that people were unable to choose God. This corruption of the faculties meant that God had to predestine some to come to faith if any were to be saved. Although theologians ordered God’s decrees of the Fall and election differently, as will be discussed later, there was always an intersection between those decrees. Ussher cited extensive historical evidence and exegetical considerations to support his views. His concern exceeded the exegetical or philosophical argument, and he wanted to show he stood in continuity with the historical teachings of the church, which was of course a mark of his moderation. Conformists tended to highlight the value of antiquity, whereas the more radical sort of Protestant felt free to break with history if so desired. This brings us to the topic of Ussher’s view of predestination proper.

Ussher on God’s Predestination This section explores Ussher’s explicit theological teaching on the doctrine of predestination before looking at the historical significance of his rhetorical strategies in the next section. He upheld classically Reformed views of predestination, wherein God decreed every event that will occur in history and chose some people from humanity for everlasting life. He diffused this doctrine throughout his catechisms and sermons and also defended it 55 Muller, Divine Will and Human Freedom, 200, 317–​22; Richard A. Muller, “Calvinist Thomism Revisited: William Ames (1576–​1633) and the Divine Ideas,” in Kathleen M. Comerford, Gary W. Jenkins, and W. J. Torrance Kirby (eds.), From Rome to Zurich, Between Ignatius and Vermigli: Essays in Honor of John Patrick Donnelly, SJ (Leiden:  Brill, 2017), 103–​20; Carl R. Trueman, Grace Alone: Salvation as a Gift of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 91–​110; Snoddy, Soteriology, 67–​78; Christoph Schwöbel, “Reformed Traditions,” in Philip McCosker and Denys Turner (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to the Summa Theologiae (Cambridge: CUP, 2016), 322–​32; Manfred Svensson and David VanDrunen (eds.), Aquinas Among the Protestants (Hoboken, NJ:  Wiley Blackwell, 2018).

138  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works historically, arguing that it was the ancient position of the church and should be upheld by the Church of England. According to him, predestination had two layers and the first, general predestination, determines every event that occurs in history: Q. What did God determine concerning his Creatures? A. He did before all time, by his unchangeable counsell, ordaine whatsoever afterwards should come to passe.56

He explained more technically not only that events are predestined, but also that “every small circumstance appertaining thereunto, was ordained from all eternity, by Gods certaine and unchangeable counsel.”57 Ussher’s doctrine of predestination was, therefore, incredibly broad and touched upon everything that happens in the created universe. The phrase “every small circumstance appertaining thereunto” is important, however, because it indicates Ussher’s concern, typical of Protestants, to subvert allegations of fatalism and accusations that made God guilty of sin. Theologians discussed proximate and remote causes of events and actions, and the proximate was the cause directly or most closely related to the effect.58 In legal terms, the proximate cause is that factor without which damage or injury could not have occurred, and so this cause is the one that creates liability. Sin’s proximate cause is always human choice. Even though God ordained an event to happen, and so may be understood as the ultimate and efficient cause of that event, which has good purposes, humans are still responsible for events that occur because of 56 Ussher, Principles (1653), 5. Although the answer is identical in the 1645 edition, the question was, “What did God before the world was made?” In both editions, Ussher cited Acts 2:23, Acts 15:18; and Psalm 33:11, but added a citation of Ephesians 1:4, 11 to the 1653 edition; Ussher, Principles (1645), 4. It may be that Ussher altered this question to clarify that his attention shifted to the works of God ad extra since the preceding questions focused on the works of God ad intra. He made this transition explicit in the Body of Divinitie: “What is that he hath revealed unto us concerning that he did before the beginning of the world? Besides the inward works of the three Persons of the blessed Trinity, (whereof we have spoken) and the mutual delight which they took one in another, and glory which they gave one to another; this eternall act of his is revealed unto us in the Scriptures, that he hath in himselfe decreed all things; together with all the circumstances of all things which have or shall be done from the beginning of the world unto the end thereof.” James Ussher, A Body of Divinitie, or, the Summe and Substance of Christian Religion (1645), 90. This, of course, helps corroborate that the Body follows Ussher’s own arrangement, as its more extensive set of questions makes explicit some transitions between topics that were implicit in the shorter catechisms. 57 Ussher, Principles (1653), 65. Ussher also argued this point in Body, 90: “What is the Decree? It is that Act whereby God from all eternity, according to his free will did by his unchangeable counsell and purpose, fore-​appoint and certainly determine of all things together with their causes, their effects, their circumstances and manner of being, to the manifestation of his own glory, Psal. 99.4. Mat. 10.29. Rom. 9.20, 21. &11.36. Prov. 16.4. Ephes. 1.4, 11. Acts 2.23. Jer. 1.5, 15” (emphasis added). 58 DLGTT, “causa proxima” and “causa remota,” 59–​60.

Predestination  139 their decisions and actions, which may be understood as the proximate and secondary causes.59 By referring to proximate causes, Ussher made people liable for sin while still upholding the idea that God has decreed all that comes to pass. Ussher thought this relationship of ultimate and secondary causes was part of the divine mystery: “Because he hath power to bring to passe all things that can be; howsoever to us they may seem impossible.”60 He explained that God not only predestined events but also executes that decree in history, teaching that the administration of God’s Kingdom is “the Decree made from all eternity and then the Execution thereof accomplished in time.”61 His point was that God’s present work in the world is providentially bringing about the secondary causes that enact the eternal decree.62 He wanted people to reflect on God’s decree, though, because it gives insight into God’s very character.63 Again here we see how Ussher thought God’s choice was grounded in God’s nature, which highlights his intellectualism, but this was also a pastoral application meant to encourage assurance that God is capable of providing for his people even in seemingly impossible circumstances. Ussher added eight pastoral insights at the end of his discussion on God as almighty in A Body of Divinitie: 1. To sustaine and strengthen our faith in Gods promises that we should not doubt of our salvation, because God can doe, and he will doe what he hath promised, and he hath promised eternall life to the faithfull.64 2. To teach us that we should not despaire of the things that God doth promise, either in respect to our own weaknesse, or in respect of the apparent weaknesse of the things that God hath sanctified for our good . . .65 3. To stirre us up to pray, and to call for those things which God hath promised without any doubting; for in our prayers we ought always to

59 DLGTT, “causa,” 56–​57; cf. Ames, Medulla, 1.6.2; I.VII.9, 45, 49–​51. 60 Ussher, Principles (1653), 60, citing Revelation 1:8; Matthew 19:26; Mark 14:36; Luke 1:37. 61 Ussher, Principles (1653), 64. 62 Muller, Divine Will and Human Freedom, 228–​30. 63 Muller, “Calvinist Thomism Revisited,” 113–​17. 64 This point was significantly rewritten in the 1677 edition of Body, which is evidence that the text was continually edited after the first edition and that the 1645 printing is likely closest to Ussher’s original version. James Ussher, A Body of Divinity: or the Sum and Substance of Christian Religion, 7th ed. (1677), 39–​40. 65 This corresponds to the teaching in Ussher, Principles (1653), 60, that God can do anything he decrees, no matter how impossible it seems to us.

140  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works





have before our eyes the promises of God, and the Almightinesse of God . . . 4. It serveth both for a spurre to do well, considering that God is able to save; and a bridle to restraine from evill, seeing he hath power to destroy . . . 5. It serveth in prosperity to continue us in our duties, that we abuse not God’s blessings . . . 6. To make us undergoe the Crosse with patience and cheerfulness . . . 7. To keep us from despairing of any mans salvation, although he seem to be rejected of God, and to make us walk in faith and fear . . . 8. It serveth to confirm all the Articles of our Christian Faith; the sum whereof is contained in the Creed.66

So even though Ussher saw this doctrine as universal in scope, he still intended it to be useful in the lives of Christians. He was not a stale churchman imposing dry orthodoxy on unwilling people. Instead, he hoped to reshape lives around Protestant doctrine in positive ways. Ussher also taught that predestination referred more specifically to eternal destinies. He asked, “Did God then before he made man, determine to save some and reject others?” His answer, “Yes surely: before they had done either good or evill, God in his eternall counsel set some apart, upon whom he would in time shew the riches of his mercy; and determine to withhold the same from others, upon whom he would shew the severity of his justice.”67 Ussher thought that the reason behind whom God chose was onely his own good pleasure whereby having purposed to create man for his own Glory, forasmuch as he was not bound to shew mercy unto any, and his Glory should appeare as well in executing of justice as in shewing mercy; it seemed good unto his heavenly Wisdome to choose a certaine number towards whom he would extend his undeserved mercy, leaving the rest to be a spectacle of his justice.68

66 Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 50. 67 Ussher, Principles (1653), 65–​66. In the 1645 edition, the last phrase read “the severity of his wrath.” Ussher likely updated the language to highlight that the condemnation is not arbitrary but is rooted in a static attribute of God rather than a volatile emotion. This would correspond to Ussher’s doctrine of divine impassibility; Principles, 55; Body, 27, 28, 57–​58. 68 Ussher, Principles (1653), 66–​67. He cited Romans 9:15, 16, 21, 22, 23; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 11:25, 26; Ephesians 1:11; Jude 4.

Predestination  141 These points show that Ussher clearly believed in double predestination—​ that is, God actively selected those who would be saved and those who would be damned. There are, however, a few observations warranted by his strongly predestinarian outlook. Ussher’s view shows that reprobation did not determine seventeenth-​century English political party lines, as even royalists and episcopal moderates believed in double predestination. On the other hand, Laud, a royalist episcopal, found this view of predestination to be one that “my very soul abominates.”69 He apparently thought that predestinarianism had radicalism and political disloyalty tied to it, which motivated his suppression of its advocates in English pulpits.70 Yet it also seems he should have known better, as Laudians sometimes even collaborated with moderate puritans against radicals.71 Theologians such as Ussher actually were royalists because they thought God had ordained—​predestined—​the monarch to rule, which of course meant that obedience to the crown was submission to God’s will.72 Although some predestinarians were no doubt radicals, moderates such as Ussher used the doctrine to support their conformity. It is worth pausing here to revisit how this analysis of Ussher’s views on predestination fits within a study of his doctrine of the covenant of works. As already noted, previous scholarship, even in reference to Ussher, claimed that the covenant of works developed in order to curtail the antinomian effects of strong views of predestination.73 More specifically, stronger views of predestination were ascribed to Reformed theology particular to Geneva, and covenantal ideas that reasserted human responsibility were claimed to be characteristic of Reformed theology in Zurich.74 As previous chapters have demonstrated, Ussher clearly emphasized the need for Adam to have rendered perfect righteousness, and Adam’s responsibility to do so, as the covenant representative, also entailed that every person was liable to render obedience to God. Yet, as seen here, Ussher also took a strict predestinarian stance, asserting that God selects some for salvation and some for condemnation. The primary sources, therefore, blatantly contradict those older 69 LW 6.1:133. 70 Arnold Hunt, The Art of Hearing: English Preachers and Their Audiences, 1590–​1640 (Cambridge: CUP, 2010), 375–​78. 71 David Como and Peter Lake, “Puritans, Antinomians and Laudians in Caroline London: The Strange Case of Peter Shaw and Its Contexts,” JEH 50, no. 4 (October 1999): 684–​715. 72 James Ussher, The Power Communicated by God to the Prince, and the Obedience Required of the Subject (1661); Ben Farwell, “James Ussher and the Divine Right of Kings: A Theory Explored,” MA thesis, Westminster Seminary California, 2016, 46–​70. 73 Capern, “Slipperye Times and Dangerous Dayes,” 60–​61; Weir, Origins,  63–​64. 74 Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant, xxi–​xxii, 27, 48, 186, 200–​215.

142  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works claims about the development of covenant theology. Richard Muller has already noted this point well, but the analysis here extends his argument a bit deeper.75 The reading of Ussher presented here indicates not just the compatibility of the covenant of works with some doctrine of predestination but that the covenant of works even came with a fairly high view of predestination. This point reaches into recent debates about the flexibility of the Reformed tradition, because Ussher was furthermore a hypothetical universalist, holding that there was some real value for the death of Christ for every person, and Muller himself, as noted in this chapter’s introduction, has called for further examination of hypothetical universalists in relation to their views of predestination. Ussher was able to hold both the covenant of works and hypothetical universalism—​the connections between which are explored more in Chapter 5—​and neither diluted his strict view of predestination.76 Further analysis of the way Ussher explained the order of God’s decrees within the doctrine of predestination only amplifies this point. Some seventeenth-​ century theological debates can seem arcane to modern readers, and one of those debates concerned the order of God’s decrees. Some, called infralapsarians, argued that the order of God’s decrees, as humanly understood, should follow the order in which they were executed temporally; thus, God decreed creation, the Fall, and election, and God viewed the objects of election and reprobation as fallen in Adam. Others, called supralapsarians, thought that the decrees should be ordered according to logical intention, entailing that God logically decreed the Fall subsequent to the decrees of election and reprobation because the latter were prior in intent.77 The supralapsarian position was obviously a more rigorous view of predestination, since God was choosing to reprobate some creatures apart from any consideration of their sin. Most scholars have concluded that Ussher was a supralapsarian, but this needs to be nuanced since many scholars confused supralapsarianism with the doctrine of double predestination.78 For 75 Muller, Christ and the Decree, 17–​75, 129–​73. 76 Snoddy, Soteriology, 40–​92; Jonathan Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 173–​86. 77 For other summaries of this debate, see J. V. Fesko, “The Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism: Calvin and the Divines,” in J. Ligon Duncan III (ed.), The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century: Essays in Remembrance of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly, Vol. 2 (Ross-​shire: Mentor, 2004), 480–​82; Fesko, “Lapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dort,” 100–​101; DLGTT, 348–​50, 275–​76. 78 Jack Cunningham, James Ussher and John Bramhall:  The Theology and Politics of Two Irish Ecclesiastics of the Seventeenth Century (Aldershot, UK:  Ashgate, 2007), 53; Ian W.  S. Campbell, “Calvinist Absolutism:  Archbishop James Ussher and Royal Power,” JBS 53 (July 2014):  588–​ 610 (following Cunningham); J. V. Fesko, Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition:  Supra-​and

Predestination  143 example, Jack Cunningham argued that Ussher was supralapsarian because he viewed predestination as an eternal determination of some to everlasting reward and some to everlasting punishment, but that is simply double predestination and not necessarily supralapsarianism. Capern similarly misread the Irish Articles, thinking that since the articles on predestination appear before the articles on creation, the order must be supralapsarian.79 J. V. Fesko explained, however, that placement does not necessarily reveal the Articles’ lapsarian view, and it likely used “a traditional medieval structure” that had a standard arrangement following Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas.80 Interestingly, Fesko concluded that the Irish Articles was infralapsarian but that Ussher was supralapsarian, but it can be seen that he too did not adequately demonstrate supralapsarianism, merely proving that Ussher held double predestination.81 All of this, however, simply points to the complexity of the topic and the difficulty of analyzing Ussher in relation to it. Snoddy recently challenged this majority assessment, arguing that Ussher’s manuscripts reveal infralapsarianism.82 He highlighted that Ussher accented God’s mercy in election: “Even where Ussher defines reprobation as ‘the eternall predestination or fore-​appointment’ of certain angelic and human creatures unto everlasting life or destruction, he immediately qualifies this as God’s free determination ‘to passe them by, refuse or cast them off.’ ”83 Michael Lynch has already flagged skepticism about Snoddy’s argument for Ussher as an infralapsarian, and Ussher’s statements are compatible with supralapsarianism, since those holding that view could argue that God can pass by even unfallen creatures if he chose to reprobate them.84 Further, Ussher’s statements applied to angels as much as people, and the reprobation of angels is inherently supralapsarian. Angels are never saved from a fallen state, but only upheld in their created condition. God predestined some to fall and some not to fall, as Ussher indicated in his 1643–​44 Oxford lectures: Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort, and Westminster (Greenville, SC:  Reformed Academic Press, 2001), 250; Fesko, “The Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism,” 505–​8; Capern, “Slipperye Times and Dangerous Dayes,” 117; Sara Jean Clausen, “Calvinism in the Anglican Hierarchy, 1603–​ 1643: Four Episcopal Examples,” PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, 1989, 229–​30, 285, 358. 79 Capern, “Slipperye Times and Dangerous Dayes,” 117. 80 Fesko, Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition, 250; Fesko, “The Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism,”  505–​8. 81 Fesko, Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition, 252, 250; Clausen, “Calvinism in the Anglican Hierarchy,” 230. 82 Snoddy, Soteriology, 240. 83 Snoddy, Soteriology, 241, citing Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 62, 92. 84 Michael J. Lynch, review of Snoddy, Soteriology, CTJ 50, no. 2 (November 2015): 316–​17.

144  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Special providence is that by which the specifics of certain creatures are governed, namely, that which pertains to their eternal condition. Providence is, moreover, special 1)  concerning Angels, 2)  concerning People. Concerning Angels, special providence is that by which their eternal condition is governed. It is, first, concerning good things, from which come their eternal happiness. It is, second, concerning wicked things, from which come their eternal miseries, as many as fell in the beginning from their original state.85

Ussher said that God predestined angels to their respective eternal destinies, which were either to fall into sin or to remain in righteousness. Although this does not prove that Ussher was supralapsarian in respect to people, the language to which Snoddy appealed cannot exclude the possibility that he was, and Ussher seemed to see a parallel in the structures of God’s election of angels and God’s election of people. It seems that Ussher never decisively answered the infra-​or supralapsarian question. He made statements that lean both ways, but he may never have worked out a consistent position. Significantly, he never explicitly addressed the issue nor wrote an exact order of decrees. It may be anachronistic to try to assign a theological designation to Ussher from an issue he never intended to settle, and Richard Muller has suggested that we begin to include the category “indeterminate” for those theologians who did not leave enough information for us to be able to assess their position precisely.86 Is this, however, the best category for Ussher? The best approach to assess his view in this debate is to pinpoint whether the objects of God’s election were fallen or sinless creatures.87 Ussher undoubtedly advocated strong double predestinarianism, but this is not decisive in determining his lapsarian view.88 Both the 1645 and 1653 catechism editions contained double predestinarianism: 85 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 35r–​35v (Propria est, qua procurantur certarum tantu[m]‌ p[ro]pria viz:  quae ad aeternam earum conditionem attinent. Est aute[m] p[ro]pria 1 Angelorum 2 Hominum. Angelorum est quae aeterna eoru[m] conditio procuratur. Ea est 1o Bonoru[m] a qua aeterna eoru[m] falicitas. 2do Maloru[m] a qua aeterna eorum infelicitas ea quam plurimi a 1a origine deficientes). 86 Richard A. Muller, “Revising the Predestination Paradigm: An Alternative to Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism, and Hypothetical Universalism,” lectures given at Mid-​ America Reformed Seminary, November 5–​6, 2008. 87 Richard A. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 44–​45; Fesko, “Lapsarian Diversity,” 100; Fesko, “The Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism,” 479. 88 Fesko, “The Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism,” 482.

Predestination  145 Q. Did God before he made man, determine to save some and reject others? Α. Yes surely: before they had done either good or evill, God in his eternall counsel set some apart, upon whom he would in time shew the riches of his mercy; and determine to withhold the same from others, upon whom he would shew the severity of his justice. Q. What should move God to make this difference betweene Man and Man? A. Onely his own good pleasure whereby having purposed to create man for his own Glory, forasmuch as he was not bound to shew mercy unto any, and his Glory should appear as well in executing of justice, as in shewing mercy; it seemed good unto his heavenly Wisdome to choose out a certaine number towards whom he would extend his undeserved mercy, leaving the rest to be spectacles of his justice.89

He is even more explicit in A Body of Divinitie concerning reprobation. What is Reprobation? It is the eternall predestination or fore-​appointment of certain Angels and men unto everlasting dishonour and destruction God of his own free-​will determining to passe them by, refuse or cast them off, and for sin to condemn and punish them with eternall death, Prov. 16.4. Exod. 9.16. Rom. 9.17.22. 2 Tim. 2.20. Mat. 25.41. Is not sin the cause of Reprobation? No; for then all men should be reprobate, when God foresaw that all would be sinners; but sin is the cause of the execution of Reprobation, the damnation whereunto the wicked are adjudged being for their own sin. Is there no cause then of Reprobation in the Reprobate? None at all, in that they rather then others are passed by of God; that is wholly from the unsearchable depth of Gods own free-​will and good pleasure. But is God unjust in reprobating some men, and electing others, when all were alike? No; for he was bound to none, and to shew his freedome and power over his creatures he disposeth of them as he will for his glory; as the Potter is not unjust in making of the same clay sundry vessels, some to honour, and some to dishonour.90

89 Ussher, Principles (1653), 65–​67.

90 Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 92.

146  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works There were many varieties of the supra-​and infralapsarian views, however, and even these strong statements on reprobation did not tie Ussher to either position.91 This ambiguity is unsurprising, since he never officially entered this debate. The second answer denied that sin causes reprobation, which favors a supralapsarian view. The objects of reprobation, however, could be sinners, which would be infralapsarian. If the terms “underserved” or “justice” presume wrongdoing, the 1653 passage leans toward infralapsarianism. If the terms do not presume wrongdoing, “onely his own good pleasure” would have unqualified application, which tilts the position toward supralapsarianism. In the final answer, those elected and reprobated are all the same, but are not specified as sinners or unfallen creatures. Even though Ussher’s statements on reprobation do not determine his lapsarian view, there are two key pieces of evidence in the manuscripts—​ which Snoddy did not consult—​that definitely promote supralapsarianism. The following manuscript does not appear in either Snoddy’s bibliography or Alan Ford’s and appears to be a previously uncited source: God had decreed, moreover, as those things were future in time, including all things, even the smallest circumstances, so in this way the event that will occur had been decreed before all eternity through the certain and immutable council of God. Predestination is subordinated to this decree. By this predestination that occurred prior to the creation of humanity and before a person could have acted righteously or wickedly, God in his eternal council separated certain persons to whom in time he would show the riches of his mercy, and he determined to withhold that same mercy from others to whom he would likewise finally show the strictness of his justice. In regards to this predestination, however, a distinction must be made only in its cause, which is God’s good pleasure, because when he resolved to create a person for his own glory, he was not bound to show mercy to anyone, so that his glory would be evident as much as in executing justice as in showing mercy. His heavenly wisdom is seen in the selection of certain ones on whom he exercises undeserved mercy; the rest he will discard in a public display of his justice.92 91 J. V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), 112–​22; Muller, “Revising the Predestination Paradigm.” 92 TCD MS 287, fol. 102r–​102v (Decretum a[utem] erat, ut quae in tempore futura erant, cu[m]‌omnibus eoru[m] vel minimis circumstantiis; eo modo sic eventura ante omnem aeternitatem, per certu[m] ac immutabile Dei consilium decretum sit:  Huic Decreto subordinatur Praedestinatio. Quâre ante creatum hominem et anteq[uam] homo bene aut male egisset, De[us] in aeterno suo consilio quosdam

Predestination  147 In this document—​probably an early draft of the Irish Articles in Ussher’s hand—​Ussher specified that the reason for distinguishing the destinies of each group is “only in its cause, which is God’s good pleasure.” He eliminated any resident consideration of the objects of election, including whether or not they are fallen. Neither God’s decree of mercy nor justice considers factors in the creature, which seems supralapsarian. Further, he included a teleological consideration: “when he resolved to create a person for his own glory, he was not bound to show mercy to anyone, so that his glory would be evident as much as in executing justice as in showing mercy.” It is clear that Ussher thought that God, even in the purpose of creating, determined then who would receive glory or condemnation. Ussher here appeared to calculate the decree in terms of purposive reasons, which, as will be shown, was characteristic of the supralapsarian position.93 The other key evidence is found in the 1643–​44 Oxford lectures: The next result of the first covenant is about the law. Death entered by consequence of the covenant, both into this age and the one to come. Concerning this covenantal premise, likewise, spiritual life [would have entered]. This happened so that Adam would lose the life of God, and so that he would become completely dead to piety and righteousness.94

The last remarks here delineate intention in God’s plan. The covenantal method of bringing life and death was instituted “so that Adam would lose the life of God.”95 The Fall was part of God’s intent to accomplish the scope of election. homines segregavit, in quos in tempore, divitias misericordiae suae ostensur[us] erat ac eandem miser[i] cordia, ab aliis detinere decrevit, in quos iustitiae suae, severitatem etiam ostensurus aliquando fuerat. Ad hanc a[utem] distinctione[m] faciendam in causa tantu[m] fuit ipsius [D]ei beneplacitu[m]; quo cum homine[m] in suam ipsius gloriam creare proposuisset, nec miser[i]cordia ûlli praebere alligaretur; ut gloria sua apparet, tam in iustitiâ exequendâ, quam in miser[i]cordia praebendâ; caelesti sua sapientiae visu[m] e[st], quosdam se ligere in quos immeritam miser[i]cordia exerceret; reliquos in justitiae suae spectaculum derelinquet). 93 DGLTT, “supra lapsum,” 348–​50. 94 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 37v–​38r (Quod secundu[m]‌eventu[m] est legis. Mors ingressa p[er] ra[ti]one foederis et hujus saeculi et future. Hujus ite[m] cujusmodi vitae spiritualis. Eo factu[m] est ut Adamus amitteret vita[m] Dei et factus sit totus pietati et iustitiae mortuus). 95 It should be emphasized that the translation of this phrase as a purpose clause is the most natural rendering of the Latin eo factum est ut Adamus ammitteret. It might be argued that this phrase could be taken as a simple result clause, if one wanted to conform Ussher to infralapsarian language, but it is best to let the usual teleological rendering stand. In the first place, ut with a subjunctive verb in the imperfect tense indicates purpose, and ammitteret is an imperfect subjunctive verb. If Ussher had wanted to express result rather than purpose, the clearer tense to use would have been the perfect or plurperfect tense; B.  L. Gildersleeve and G.  Lodge, Gildersleeve’s Latin Grammar

148  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Ussher’s teleological statements concerning the decrees stand fully in line with the supralapsarian dictum “Whatever is first in intention is last in execution.”96 Jonathan Moore certainly overstated his case by saying that “neither [John] Davenant nor Ussher was supralapsarian,” an assertion that is unsupported.97 These instances of a purely supralapsarian statement do not compensate for the imprecise nature of Ussher’s comments throughout his work. Snoddy’s most powerful evidence, in which he claimed that Ussher “defines election as ‘God’s love to sever me from the corrupt mass of Adam’s posterity,’ ” appears purely infralapsarian in identifying the objects of election as sinners.98 This citation is highly problematic, however, because the key phrase “from the corrupt mass of Adam’s posterity,” which would characterize this statement as infralapsarian, does not appear in the early modern editions. It seems instead that Charles Elrington artificially inserted the phrase into his edition of Ussher’s sermons in order to turn readers away from seeing Ussher as supralapsarian. The original editions simply read, “The other [i.e., election] is God’s love to sever me.”99 Ussher himself did not specify whether election severed the chosen from those whom God considered as fallen in (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2009), 343 (§543). Further, if Ussher had intended to mark a result, we would expect the clause to be introduced by tam, talis, tantus, ita, sic, adeo, usque, or eo, followed by ut with the subjunctive to mark result, but this is not the case here; J. B. Greenough, G. L. Kittredge, A. A. Howard, and Benjamin L. D’Ooge (eds.), Allen and Greenough’s New Latin Grammar (Boston: Ginn & Company, 1903), 346 (§537). Most decisively in this instance, eo as a preceding relative clause—​which is different from introducing the clause as just mentioned—​followed by ut with the (imperfect) subjunctive distinctly marks purpose phrases, which is exactly the case here; Charlton T. Lewis, and Charles Short, A New Latin Dictinary (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1891), eo I.A.2.β. This point becomes even more clear when we recognize that factum est was used to translate the Greek phrase διὰ τοῦτο, which clearly had causative value, e.g., the Vulgate translation of Mark 6:14. The type of construction used in Ussher’s phrasing was, therefore used in teleological phrasing, and the purpose clause should be maintained. Thanks to Todd Rester for his specific help in confirming this point. 96 Franciscus Gomarus, Conciliatio doctrinae orthodoxae de providentia Dei (Amsterdam, 1644), 157: “Finis enim (ut ex naturae luce omnibus notum & communi sermone tritum) prior est mediis, in intentione (si non tempore, saltem ordine) posterior autem executione.” William Twisse, Vindiciae gratiae, potestatis, ac providentiae Dei (Amsterdam, 1632), 7: “Contra vero si quis dicat damnationem sicut in executione posterius contingit, ita etiam in intentione priorem esse quamvis affectus obstrepant, ratio tamen non reclamat; etiam compescendis affectibus occurrit ex verbo Dei & illud Solomonis de improbo condito ad Prov 16.” William Twisse, The Riches of Gods Love unto the Vessells of Mercy (Oxford, 1653), 4: “For the decrees whereof we treat, are meerely Intentiones rerum gerendarum. Now for the ordering of these in what kind soever, we have received Rules of the Schooles, never yet that I know contradicted by any; namely that they are to be ordered according to the condition of the things intended, which are but two, to wit, the end and the means; and all doe attribute priority of the intention of the end, and posteriority to the intention of the means.” 97 Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 188 n. 74. 98 Snoddy, Soteriology, 241, citing UW 13:28 (sermon on Hebrews 4:7). 99 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 35 (sermon on Hebrews 4:7); The same is true in the previous edition: James Ussher, Eighteen Sermons Preached in Oxford (1660), 35.

Predestination  149 Adam or those whom God considered not yet fallen. The strongest evidence that Ussher was infralapsarian, therefore, rested on a nineteenth-​century fabrication. The clearer evidence is Ussher’s teleological statements that point to a supralapsarian way of reasoning. Despite this weight of evidence toward supralapsarianism, it appears Ussher never thoroughly answered this question and, much like Calvin, left us with mixed statements. He should likely, therefore, be labeled indeterminate with a supralapsarian bent. This discussion concerning Ussher’s lapsarian position is significant for other important issues raised in this study. Muller has begun to challenge the assumption that hypothetical universalists were necessarily infralapsarians, putting forth William Twisse as the primary example of a supralapsarian hypothetical universalist.100 Ussher should also now be included as one who both leaned more supralapsarian, as proper translations of his manuscripts have shown that he adopted the teleological language that Twisse so clearly used, and advocated for hypothetical universalism, as will be explored in Chapter  5. This shows that hypothetical universalism did not necessarily entail a softer version of predestinarian theology, but in fact was one doctrine that theologians linked within their vast web of doctrines in various and flexible ways.101 Furthermore, while older studies in theological history maintained that the covenant of works, predestination, and hypothetical universalism all competed theologically at some level, this work’s consideration of Ussher’s lapsarian views in conjunction with his emphasis on the covenant of works has begun to show those arguments to be untenable. This point will be furthered by the discussion in Chapter 5 of Ussher’s view of Christ’s satisfaction on the cross as it related to the covenant of works. Although Ussher was a quintessential moderate, he rigorously taught God’s sovereign choice of those who would be saved. No matter how politically charged the issue was, predestinarians did not unanimously belong to either the parliamentarian party or to the puritans. Ussher held a strong position on God’s active role in reprobation. Although, as we have seen, it is not clear whether he was infra-​or supralapsarian, he was a lifelong double predestinarian. Hypothetical universalism—​the position that Christ’s death was genuinely intended for every person, not only the elect—​did not necessarily dilute a thoroughly predestinarian theology, and neither did the covenant of

100 Muller, “Revising the Predestination Paradigm.” 101 Richard A. Muller, “Diversity in the Reformed Tradition: A Historiographical Introduction,” in Drawn into Controversie,  24–​25.

150  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works works.102 The intersection of these doctrines in Ussher’s theology indicates the diverse and complex nature of early modern doctrinal debates.

Preaching and Promoting Predestination We have analyzed Ussher’s doctrine of predestination and positioned him within the broader spectrum of early modern predestinarianism, but it is now important to establish the historical significance of his arguments for predestination. Ussher’s arguments in the late 1620s through the 1630s that the Church of England should uphold predestinarianism were also meant to help establish the doctrine for the Church of Ireland, since the two churches were connected under the English monarch. These arguments show that, although Ussher accommodated some of Laud’s policies, he refused to conform when conscience was at risk. This is significant because some in the seventeenth century saw the predestinarians as political and social radicals who were prone to upheaval, but Ussher’s combination of double predestinarianism and social conservatism on issues like monarchical authority shatters that claim.103 He was a self-​conscious moderate, and yet at times he had to go against even the king’s orders. Under the Laudian regime, the Church of Ireland was forced into conformity with its English counterpart, which explains Ussher’s appeal to the king, his historical investigation of English issues, and his efforts to develop separate canon law for the Irish church.104 But his approach to preaching and promoting of predestination during this period clarifies how, despite obvious tensions, he was committed both to articulating the sovereignty of God and to submitting to church authorities. Although he publicly and persistently attempted to establish the doctrine’s historical footing in writing, he restrained his preaching on the subject, particularly in London pulpits during Charles I’s reign—​likely because of canon law’s prescription of royal authority (which Charles had used to quiet predestinarians) and its emphasis on matters of general consent.105 He knew

102 Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 173–​86; Snoddy, Soteriology,  40–​92. 103 James Ussher, A Speech Delivered in the Castle Chamber at Dublin, the XXII of November, Anno 1622 (1631); James Ussher, The Soveraignes Power, and the Subjects Duty: Delivered in a Sermon, at Christ-​Church in Oxford, March 3, 1643 (Oxford, 1644 [1643]); James Ussher, The Rights of the Primogeniture, in UW 13:353–​66; Campbell, “Calvinist Absolutism,” 588–​610. 104 Ford, Ussher, 178–​97. 105 [Church of England], Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiasticall (1604), canons I–​II, V; [Church of Ireland], Constitutions, and Canons Ecclesiastical (Dublin, 1635), canons I–​II.

Predestination  151 how volatile the issue was and submitted, up to a point, to his superiors’ orders, but still said something to God’s people concerning election. Ussher was what might best be called a polemical historian, as his work in patristic and medieval sources all served to bolster the credibility of his own theological positions.106 He was not a dispassionate historian, and although he had a basically sound historical method, he lacked historical awareness of how contextual apparatuses adjust the “conventions of truth.”107 Throughout his career he intended his historical research to resolve controversies of his own time. His first publication discussed the historical succession of the church, and when he died he was working on a massive treatment of the history of doctrine from the earliest centuries to his own.108 Some of his most immediately polemical historical work, however, appeared during Charles I’s personal rule. Ussher published two treatises in 1631, A Discourse of the Religion Anciently Professed by the Irish and the British, published in London, and Gottschalk and the Predestination Controversy—​the first Latin book published in Dublin—​ and both discussed the historicity of the doctrine of predestination.109 The book on Gottschalk of Orbais (c. 804–​868)—​a monk who was disciplined and imprisoned for teaching Augustinian views of predestination—​was entirely devoted to the topic.110 Ussher stated in the dedicatory epistle of Discourse that he hoped the book would bring about religious change by better acquainting the Irish people with scriptural and patristic teaching.111 He wanted Irish people to own these historical investigations as the doctrinal heritage of Ireland and be convinced that they contained biblical truth. The 106 Richard Snoddy, “The Sources of James Ussher’s Patristic Citations on the Intent and Sufficiency of Christ’s Satisfaction,” in Jon Balserak and Richard Snoddy (eds.), Learning from the Past: Essays on Reception, Catholicity, and Dialogue in Honour of Anthony N. S. Lane (Edinburgh: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 107–​29; Coleman M. Ford, “‘Everywhere, Always, by All’: William Perkins and James Ussher on the Constructive Use of the Fathers,” PRJ 7, no. 2 (2015): 96; James Ussher, The Reduction of Episcopacie unto the Form of Synodical Government (1656); James Ussher, Polycarpi et Ignatii Epistolae (Oxford, 1644); James Ussher, Appendix Ignatiana (1647). 107 Quentin Skinner, “Interpretation, Rationality and Truth,” and “Interpretation and the Understanding of Speech Acts,” in Visions of Politics: Volume 1: Regarding Method (Cambridge: CUP, 2002), 45–​47, 65. 108 James Ussher, Gravissimae quaestionis de Christianarum ecclesiarum (1613); Bodl., MS e Mus. 46 (copied notes of Ussher’s Bibliotheca Theologica); Bodl., MS e Mus. 47 (Copied notes of Ussher’s Bibliotheca Theologica). The British Library houses Ussher’s original notes; BL, MS Harleian 822. 109 James Ussher, A Discourse of the Religion Anciently Professed by the Irish and the British (1631); James Ussher, Gotteschalci et Predestinatianae Controveriae (Dublin, 1631). Ussher claimed it is the first Latin book printed in Ireland; Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:550 (Ussher to Samuel Ward, July 29, 1631). 110 D. E. Nineham, “Gottschalk of Orbais: Reactionary or Precursor of the Reformation?” JEH 40, no. 1 (January 1989): 3–​4. 111 Ussher, Discourse, sig. A2r–​A2v.

152  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works “substance” of patristic teaching was “the very same with that which now by publike authoritie is maintained,” he wrote, referring to the Irish Articles, the publicly authoritative confession from 1615 to 1634.112 The dedication of this work in 1631 to Sir Christopher Sibthorp (d. 1632–​33), a justice on the king’s bench in Ireland, was therefore a pointed move. This dedication appealed to someone possessing political power to protect Protestant principles, and Sibthorp also had reason to prove his opposition to “popish religion” after being expelled from Middle Temple, an inn of court, years earlier for nonconformity.113 Ussher did not include many interpretive remarks in his historical writings, which makes it difficult to reconstruct his personal theological formulations from them. His subtlety shines, however, as he let the voices of the dead speak for him in works such as Discourse and Gottschalk, and these books’ historical context and polemical point clarify the value of the quotation-​saturated chapters for Ussher’s theology. The chapter on predestination, grace, free will, faith, works, justification and sanctification in Discourse began: The Doctrine which our learned men observed out of the Scriptures & the writings of the most approved Fathers was this, that God by his immoveable counsaile . . . ordained some of his creatures to praise him, and to live blessedly from him and in him, & by him: namely, by his eternall predestination, his free calling, and his grace which was due to none.114

Although couched within substantial quotation, Ussher’s point was clear enough:  the Scripture and the ancient church taught that people were predestined to specific eternal destinies. Ussher cited St. Gall, a seventh-​ century monk who, most importantly, was Irish.115 Then Ussher quoted Augustine, which was meant to align the Irish with the theologian famous for emphasizing sovereign predestination.116 Ussher notably inserted comments on the quotes about faith, works, justification, and sanctification to give context or analysis, but remained silent concerning the quotes about election. This strategy allowed Ussher to address the most politically tumultuous topic

112 Ussher, Discourse, sig. A3r. 113

John McCafferty, “Sir Christopher Sibthorp,” ODNB.

115

Dagmar Ó Riain-​Raedel, “Gall,” ODNB.

114 Ussher, Discourse, 11 (italics original, indicating Ussher’s quotations). 116 Ussher, Discourse,  12–​13.

Predestination  153 of the day without using his own words.117 Either he was shrewdly avoiding liability for his argument or he was boldly showed the anti-​Calvinists—​as Tyacke labeled them—​that his words were unnecessary to prove the validity of the predestinarian view. This type of historical defense was even clearer in his work Gottschalk and the Predestination Controversy, which was most likely intended to rework the narrative of the Pelagian controversy as told by Remonstrant scholar Gerardus Johannes Vossius (1577–​1649).118 Ussher’s work, released at the height of Laudian authoritarianism, examined historical opposition to predestinarian teaching in the church and recorded instances where predestinarian theologians were suppressed. Alan Ford called this work “typically oblique” because layered within the historical narrative was the indirect polemic that there have always been convinced predestinarians within orthodox Christianity and it was bad practice to suppress them.119 Gottschalk had attempted to connect his views with those of Augustine, but Augustine’s supposed ambiguity on predestination, which allowed both Gottschalk and his opponent Hincmar of Rheims (c. 806–​882) to cite him, meant that Gottschalk needed other patristic evidence to demonstrate the antiquity of his position.120 Ussher saw Gottschalk both as a predestinarian ally and as a polemical tool, and so he filled his book with quotations from Gottschalk and included two of Gottschalk’s previously unavailable confessions.121 Most pointedly, Ussher showed how early Pelagian conflicts were the immediate background for Gottschalk’s controversy, but he left unstated the parallels to England’s Richard Montagu controversies.122 Disconnected from the broader context in which it was released, Ussher’s book on Gottschalk would appear to be a dispassionate retrieval of a forgotten medieval theologian, but despite the general tenor of neutrality Ussher did occasionally reveal his intentions.123 He wanted to do far more than bring Gottschalk back within the orthodox pale on issues like the Trinity; he hoped to show that 117 Ussher, Discourse,  11–​16. 118 Gerardus Joannes Vossius, Historiae de controversiis, quas Pelagius eiusque reliquiae moverunt libri septem (Lugduni Batavorum, 1618). 119 Ford, Ussher, 155. 120 Jenny Claire Smith, “Heresy and Orthodoxy in Carolingian Europe: Gottschalk of Orbais’ Use of Patristic Texts in a Debate on Divine Predestination,” MA thesis, Valdosta State University, 2015, 78–​101. 121 Ussher, Gottschalci, 209–​37. 122 Ussher, Gottschalci, 1–​13; Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, 164–​80; Ford, Ussher, 157. 123 Ussher, Gottschalci, 197:  Atqui in Valentino concilio, Praedestinatianam illam quam vocat haeresim, hoc est, Gotteschalci pariter ac Augustini sententiam de praedestinatione orthodoxam, comprobatam fuisse jam ostendimus.

154  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Gottschalk’s agreement with Augustine meant double predestination fell well within the scope of ecumenical theology.124 Ussher’s correspondence gives insight into his purposes in publishing Gottschalk and the Predestination Controversy. That Ussher dedicated the book to Vossius supports the argument that he was trying to overwrite Vossius’ Remonstrant account of the Pelagian controversies. Vossius was a Dutch humanist who was suspected of supporting Arminianism during the Synod of Dort and who definitely supported Hugo Grotius (1583–​ 1645), and he was also the son-​in-​law of notable Dutch Reformed theologian Franciscus Junius.125 Ussher complimented Vossius’ work on the Pelagian controversy but thought Gottschalk would be a worthy addition to that account. The contributions of the Gottschalk book “seemed sensible to send to you: in case perhaps they may be of use in adding to a new edition of your history.”126 Ussher probably suspected Vossius of Arminian leanings and that Vossius had interpreted events to make room for the Remonstrants in church history. Vossius’ book had been released in 1618, the year the Synod of Dort commenced to settle the Remonstrance disputes in the Netherlands, and his goal seemed to be to gain more leniency for the Remonstrant doctrines, since he claimed the real standard of orthodoxy was the breadth of the Apostles’ Creed.127 This obviously conflicted with Ussher’s purpose in writing Gottschalk to gain leniency for the Reformed to teach on predestination, and Vossius’ response to Ussher’s letters supported Ussher’s suspicions of Arminianism.128 Ussher subtly hinted that his work on Gottschalk should correct Vossius’ Remonstrant narrative, and Vossius’ reply clarified the implications of Ussher’s argument:

124 Ussher, Gottschalci, 15–​17, 58–​65; Nineham, “Gottschalk of Orbais,” 5–​7, 10, 11; Smith, “Heresy and Orthodoxy in Carolingian Europe,” 54–​60. 125 Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:567 (letter dated January 11, 1632); C. S. M. Rademaker, “Garardus Johnannes Vossius,” ODNB. 126 Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:546. This is a translation of the dedicatory epistle from Ussher, Gottschalci, sig. C2v. 127 Vossius, Historiae de controversiis, sig. a2r (Beatum illud vas, Apostolus Paulus, in vinculis suis ad Ephesos scribens, dimisse & vehementi eos zelo orat, ut cum omni modestia ac mansuetudine, cum animi lenitate, tolerent alii alios per charitatem, studentes servare unitatem spiritus per vinculum pacis. Rationem vero adjungit, quia sint unum corpus: quomodo et unus Dominus, una fides, unum baptisma. Quo satis ostendit, nihil magis quam charitatem & animorum unitatem eos decere, qui per fidei et baptismi unitatem inserti sint in unum corpus, cujus caput est Dominus Jesus. Corpus vero hoc, cujus unitatem in fide praedicat Apostolus, in symbolo appellatur Ecclesia Catholica: nempe quia verae Ecclesiae fides non urbis, uniusve aetatis sensus; sed orbis, & seculorum omnium est consensus). 128 Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:567 (letter dated January 11, 1632).

Predestination  155 I still rejoice very much that we do well agree in that matter which, unless I am mistaken, is the head of the matter. For we each embrace the opinion of St Augustine. But it remains in question whether Gottschalk too, and anyone who followed Gottschalk, did satisfactorily follow it. I am myself afraid that Gottschalk may have exceeded it.129

Despite evidence in Gottschalk’s confessions, which Ussher published, Vossius insisted some French documents proved his view. The problem was that he had never seen or read them.130 Vossius concluded that Gottschalk’s peers “rightly condemned” him for his teaching on predestination.131 Ussher replied that he was glad to know that Vossius supported Augustinianism, but he would not argue further whether that tradition included Gottschalk. He subtly restated that “we ourselves agree with Augustine, whose opinion Remigius defended in Gottschalk’s case.”132 It is difficult not to read the tone of Ussher’s letter as doubtful of Vossius’ claim that he was fully Augustinian, which fits well with his intention to recast Vossius’ account with a heavier stress on the role of predestination in the history of the church. He clearly aligned Augustine with Gottschalk and his own view. Ussher and Vossius corresponded further, and Ussher dedicated another book to Vossius, but the discussions were general and did not return to Gottschalk or predestination.133 Ussher’s correspondence with Vossius makes it apparent that at least one of his intentions in publishing his account of Gottschalk was to refute Arminian historiography. Whereas Ussher’s letters to Vossius show that he hoped his Gottschalk work would prove double predestination was within the Augustinian tradition, some of his other correspondence shows how Charles I’s ban on predestinarian teaching was a significant contextual factor for the book’s publication. Samuel Ward, Ussher’s close friend and Lady Margaret 129 Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:566 (letter dated January 11, 1632). 130 Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:567 (letter dated January 11, 1632). Modern scholarship indicates that Hincmar incorrectly assessed Gottschalk and imprisoned him because Gottschalk’s “unorthodoxy” would help Hincmar keep his ecclesiastical position; Nineham, “Gottschalk of Orbais,” 5–​9, 11. 131 Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:567 (letter dated January 11, 1632). Vossius reaffirmed his disagreement with Ussher in a letter dated February 13, 1632; Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:575. 132 Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:588 (letter dated June 10, 1632). 133 Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:612–​14 (Vossius to Ussher, July 27, 1633), 778 (Ussher to Vossius, August 3/​13, 1639), 3:851–​53 (Vossius to Ussher, April 2, 1641), 865–​66 (Vossius to Ussher, November 20, 1641), 905–​6 (Ussher to Vossius, July 19, 1647), 924–​25 (Vossius to Ussher, January 30, 1648), 956–​67 (Ussher to Vossius, March 16, 1649); James Ussher, De Romanae Ecclesiae symbol apostolico vetere (1647).

156  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, wanted to revise his lectures on grace and free will, but he had been censured for supporting the Reformed cause in Cambridge.134 He praised Ussher’s work on Gottschalk, hoping it would cause Vossius “to revise his Story,” which substantiates that Ussher’s polemical purpose was to affirm the orthodoxy of Gottschalk’s double predestinarianism.135 The letter from Ward predates the publication of Gottschalk and the Predestination Controversy, indicating a premeditated attack on Vossius. Ussher’s prescriptive point was, therefore, unsurprisingly subtler in letters to Vossius. William Twisse (1577/​8–​1646), who published a defense of William Perkins’ predestinarianism in 1632 and who served as the Westminster Assembly’s first prolocutor, hoped Ussher’s Gottschalk work would mitigate Vossius’ influence on Protestant historiography.136 Ussher seemed very up front with his Reformed kinsmen about his intended results for his book about Gottschalk. Ussher’s letters to Archbishop Laud, however, could be read as more provocative. Despite the intent to amend Vossius’ narrative that other correspondence made obvious, Ussher told Laud his book “differeth little from that which was published by Vossius,” suggesting the book should not be seen as radical.137 On another occasion, however, he wrote to Laud and used the publication of his Gottschalk book to defend the book George Downame (1560–​1634), bishop of Derry, wrote on the covenant of grace. He noted that Downame’s work was published prior to Charles’ suppression order, which apparently should have meant it would not be held liable under the later policy. The striking thing here is how in one instance Ussher downplayed the predestinarian tone of his Gottschalk book and in another leveraged the fact that his explicitly predestinarian work had been printed in Ireland without repercussions to defend the publication of a thoroughly Reformed work on covenant theology. In that letter to Laud, Ussher drew upon his own reputation to help a fellow Reformed theologian, and it is notable for this study that he was defending a book about covenant theology. This tactic is most surprising in light of an earlier letter to Laud in which Ussher wrote: 134 Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:513–​14 (letter dated May 25, 1630). Ward was censured in 1629; Margot Todd, “Samuel Ward,” ODNB. 135 Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:514 (letter dated May 25, 1630). 136 Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:815 (Twisse to Ussher, May 29, 1640); Twisse, Vindiciae Gratiae. It is significant that Twisse’s work was published in the Netherlands and not in England. This was, of course, most directly due to the gag order on predestinarianism in England at the time. 137 Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:560 (letter dated September 22, 1631).

Predestination  157 I make bold likewise to present your Lordship with the Historye of Gotteschalcus latelye here published:  which maketh good the Advertisement prefixed before the new edition of the Articles of Religion in England. . . . And although my special drift in setting forth this Historicall declaration, was to bring either side to some better temper: yet I thought it better to publishe it in the Latin tongue rather than the vulgar, because I held it not convenient that the common people should be troubled with questions of this nature.138

Ussher apparently sent his Gottschalk book to Laud, acknowledging that it contravened the anti-​predestinarian proclamation and preemptively asserting that Laud should not worry about this historical scholarship published in Latin.139 The Thirty-​Nine Articles, after all, did explicitly teach predestination to some degree, which meant that Ussher had not ventured outside the establishment consensus found in canon law, even if the king disapproved.140 Ussher’s other letters, however, showed his polemical intent, and indicated that several others hoped Ussher’s Gottschalk book would restore the respectability of double predestinarianism. The letter and gift to Laud appear to be a subtle taunt, since Laud likely could not do much about a Dublin-​published book by an Irish archbishop so respected in academic and ecclesiastical circles. Ussher’s assertion that the book was in Latin was inconsequential, since he wrote Discourse in English and it included translations of Latin sources supporting predestination. It is perhaps crucial to note, however, that Laud himself had admired Vossius’ history of the Pelagian controversy.141 Although it is not clear how Ussher would have known that information, it could well be that Ussher’s attempt to revise Vossius’ account was not so much because he had an eye on Dutch theological trends as because he was trying to counterbalance Vossius’ influence in his own communion. Ussher’s academic publications reveal his theological convictions, showing his boldness about tackling a most contentious topic. His actions in Dublin beginning in 1627 also show his concern to secure a strong footing 138 Correspondence of James Ussher, 2:547–​48 (letter dated June 30, 1631). 139 Elizabethanne Boran, “Ussher and the Collection of Manuscripts in Early Modern Europe,” in Jason Harris and Keith Sidwell (eds.), Making Ireland Roman:  Irish Neo-​Latin Writers and the Republic of Letters (Cork: Cork University Press, 2009), 186–​87. 140 Articles Agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops (London, 1628), sig. C1v (article 17); [Church of England], Constitutions and Canons, canons I–​II, V; [Church of Ireland], Constitutions and Canons, canons I–​II; Collier, Debating Perseverance,  20–​58. 141 LW 6.2:702, 705.

158  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works for Reformed doctrine in the Irish Church.142 Ussher was committed to preaching, and he filled a pulpit wherever he settled for any length of time. Records of his sermons give important insight into what he thought the laity needed to know. He typically explained a doctrine from a chain of biblical texts and then transitioned to its practical uses. He used everything he taught as a doctrinal platform for living the godly life. This structure was a standard feature of so-​called puritan preaching, but he blended textual exposition and doctrinal explanation, while most “puritans” separated these sections.143 In Ireland, “the Church itself was largely uninterested in distinguishing between puritans and conformists,” which left Ussher free to collate his puritan preferences with his conformed commitments.144 Predestination’s contentious role in the period makes it particularly enlightening as a sermon topic. Someone who preached on it either thought it was important for the laity or was a political radical who was teaching prohibited topics in order to rouse his superiors. Charles banned teaching predestination in 1628, a ban that Laud enthusiastically enforced and which loaded the topic politically.145 Ford rightly interpreted the sermon Ussher delivered to Charles on June 25, 1626, as challenging the proclamation the king had released nine days earlier, on June 16, that forbade teaching predestination from pulpits.146 It was also a reaction to Charles’ dissolution of Parliament before it could pass a bill, proposed on June 13, to give the Irish Articles authoritative status alongside England’s Thirty-​Nine Articles.147 This sermon may not show how Ussher formulated the doctrine, but it certainly indicates he cherished the right to explain it.148 Ford’s assessment of this sermon reveals Ussher’s readiness to handle the most contentious issues

142 Ford, Ussher, 154–​64. 143 Tom Webster, “Preaching and Parliament, 1640–​1659,” in Peter McCullough, Hugh Adlington, and Emma Rhatigan (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Early Modern Sermon (New York: OUP, 2011), 412–​ 18; Chad Van Dixhoorn, God’s Ambassadors:  The Westminster Assembly and the Reformation of the English Pulpit, 1643–​1653 (Grand Rapids, MI: RHB, 2017), 97–​99; Beeke and Jones, Puritan Theology, 689–​95, 700–​701; Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England, Volume 1: From Cranmer to Hooker, 1534–​1603 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), 294–​324; Louis B. Wright, “William Perkins: Elizabethan Apostle of ‘Practical Divinity,’” HLQ 3, no. 2 (January 1940): 176–​78. 144 Ford, Ussher, 52. 145 English Articles, 4–​6; Hunt, Art of Hearing, 372–​85; Cust, Charles I, 133–​47; Carlton, Archbishop William Laud, 70–​131; Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England from Andrewes to Baxter and Fox, 1603–​1690 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), 337–​40. 146 Ford, Ussher, 140–​44. 147 Ford, Ussher, 140. 148 CUL MS Dd.v.31; James Ussher, James Ussher and a Reformed Episcopal Church, edited by Richard Snoddy (Moscow, ID: Davenant Press, 2018), 97–​117.

Predestination  159 even in uncongenial forums when he was provoked strongly enough.149 The sermon records, however, show Ussher’s mixed engagement with the topic of election. Ussher addressed God’s decree at St. Paul’s Church in Covent Garden, but minimized his treatment, through only passing use of the associated terminology: “The execution of this Decree appears In His Creation: And In His Providence.”150 He advocated this view elsewhere, but used the phrase “general providence” (providentia communia). He explained in his 1643–​44 lectures, delivered at Oxford: Providence is that which is provided for the creatures. It is either general or special. General providence is that by which the things that are entirely general are governed. By these things, every creature is sustained, is kept safe, is corrupted. And all things are ruled and are administered; first all things themselves were formed, then their origin, progress and departure, then whatever pertains to these.151

And in his 1653 catechism, Q. How are you to consider Gods Providence? A. Both as it is common unto all the creatures; which are thereby sustained in their being, and ordered according to the Lords will: and as it properly concerneth the everlasting condition of the Principall Creatures, to wit Angels and Men.152

Ussher extended providence to creatures’ eternal destinies. The Oxford lectures added the separate category of special providence (providentia propria): “Special providence is that by which the specifics of certain creatures are governed, namely, that which pertains to their eternal condition.”153 This chronologically ordered evidence simply demonstrates that he maintained a consistent predestinarian viewpoint until the end of his career. 149 Consider also Ussher’s actions in Ireland in Ford, Ussher, 146–​52. 150 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 10v (sermon on Colossians 1:16, dated January 23, 1641 [1642]). 151 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 35r (Providentia est quâ creaturis providetur: ea est vel communis vel propria. Com[m]‌unis, quâ procurantur, quae su[n]t omninò communia, eâ, creatura omnes sustinentur, conservantur; corrumpuntur. et omnia, cum ipsae res omnes conditae tum earu[m] origines progresssus, exitus, tum quaecunque ad eas p[er]tinent, reguntur atque administrantur). 152 Ussher, Principles (1653), 69–​70; UW 11:204; Ussher, Principles (1645), 62; TCD MS 291, fol. 22v–​23r. 153 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 35r (Propria est, qua procurantur certarum tantu[m]‌p[ro] pria viz: quae ad aeternam earum conditionem attinent).

160  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Ussher was much more reserved in his 1642 Covent Garden sermon, where he urged his hearers to concern “not yourselves w[i]‌th the Decree of God. See what God does, And then you may say, He purposes that: that w[hi] ch you see God does, you may resolve was His Decree.”154 He maintained that God decreed every event in history. This statement was a compressed version of his other explanation, “All things whatsoever should in time come to passe, with every small circumstance appertaining thereunto, was ordained to be so from all eternity, by Gods certaine and unchangeable counsel.”155 Despite his doctrinal view that everything is predestined, he discouraged people from trying to fathom that decree. They could know only that if an event occurred, God decreed it. Ussher preached in Covent Garden until November 1642, the year civil war began, and after that period consistently refrained from giving more detail on predestination or election. There were complex reasons for this partial silence. The manuscript versions of Ussher’s catechisms and his 1643–​44 Oxford lectures defended a predestinarian view before and after the 1642 sermon, so he was not silent in that sermon because he thought predestination should not be taught. Upon returning to London in 1647, he began preaching at Lincoln’s Inn and addressed predestination as the first topic of his first sermon: “Thy Actual Election Is, when thou comest, when thou art called: many men search Into their aeternal Election: That’s to no purpose: make thy Callinge sure: Thy Callinge Is the Accomplishment of the Election.”156 He was already more pointed here than he had been in 1642, but he became even more so in later Lincoln’s Inn sermons.157 Still he encouraged hearers to “not trouble ourselves with Election and Reprobation,” but to be content with understanding the decree by what happens in history.158 He never discarded his pastoral concern that the doctrine should not be used to lead Christians into speculation. It seems Ussher was always pursuing the right balance between obeying higher church authorities, explaining the whole counsel of God, and tending to people’s pastoral needs, and this is evidenced in that he said more about election and reprobation in 1651 than during Charles’ personal rule, but still omitted extended discussion of it from the pulpit. Ussher’s quest for balance 154 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 10v (sermon on Colossians 1:16, dated January 23, 1641 [1642]). 155 Ussher, Principles (1653), 65. Unchanged from Ussher, Principles (1645), 58, and TCD MS 291, fol. 21v (there are spelling alterations from the manuscript). 156 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 46r (sermon on Romans 8:16, dated October 31, 1647). 157 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 215r–​216r (sermon on Exodus 34:6–​7, dated April 6, 1651), 218v–​219v (sermon on Ephesians 1:11, dated April 27, 1651). 158 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 219v (sermon on Genesis 2:1–​2, dated May 4, 1651).

Predestination  161 in preaching regarding the doctrine of predestination was perhaps not surprising, however; even Augustine himself strongly advocated for divine election in dogmatic works but remained more reserved about the topic in sermons.159 Ussher’s own tendencies, far from diluting his commitment to the doctrine, were simply one approach within the Augustinian tradition. Ussher shared a desire with English Reformed preachers to minimize the unintended ill effects of preaching on predestination.160 This had been a concern of English divines at least since James I ordered moderation from the British delegation to the Synod of Dort.161 Arnold Hunt demonstrated that the laity was likely interested in predestination, and he argued that ministers sought to be encouraging and comforting rather than terrifying and disconcerting in their presentation of the doctrine.162 Ussher promoted preaching methods that included “efforts to portray the doctrine of predestination as moderate and inclusive.”163 Ussher’s doctrinal temperance contrasted with Gottschalk’s perhaps overbearing approach. It is unlikely that predestinarian advocates who muted its hard tones in their sermons were simply complying with Charles’ 1628 orders. Rather, James I’s injunctions that even preaching on predestination should focus on application took real hold of English sermons.164 James’ injunction could have easily persuaded preachers to accommodate their approach, whereas Charles’ order was genuinely restrictive.165 Ussher perceived a division of labor between academic work and the pulpit, and this division aligned with James’ distinction in the 1622 Directions between “schools” and “pulpit.”166 “Sermonic rhetoric had to be flexible in order to adapt to new political and theological challenges,” wrote Hunt.167 Ussher’s less direct approach to predestination in his sermons highlighted practically oriented content that would be useful to God’s people—​another indicator of his experimental predestinarianism—​but he never diluted his high view of election and reprobation.168 159 Peter T. Sanlon, Augustine’s Theology of Preaching (Minneapolis, MN:  Fortress Press, 2014),  17–​18. 160 Hunt, Art of Hearing, 346–​72. 161 Fesko, “Lapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dort,” 106. 162 Hunt, Art of Hearing, 350–​51, 356, 361, 370–​71. 163 Hunt, Art of Hearing, 371. 164 See “Royal Directions to Preachers, 1622,” in Kenneth Fincham (ed.), Visitation Articles and Injunctions of the Early Stuart Church, Vol. 1 (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 1994), 211–​14. 165 “Royal Declaration for the Peace of the Church, 1628–​9,” in Kenneth Fincham (ed.), Visitation Articles and Injunctions of the Early Stuart Church, Vol. 2 (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 1998), 33–​34. 166 “Royal Directions,” 211–​14; Hunt, Art of Hearing, 379–​82. 167 Hunt, Art of Hearing, 391. 168 Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 50.

162  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works

Predestination and Covenant This chapter has thus far sought to show how Ussher held strict views of predestination in tandem with the covenant of works and hypothetical universalism (the latter of which is explored in Chapter 5) and sought to give a nuanced account of Ussher’s rhetoric within the historical context. Now, however, we transition to an analysis of the explicit connections that Ussher drew between predestination and the covenant of works. Ussher lectured in Oxford during the civil war, which many historians have directly connected to the conflict of religious ideals, and linked God’s covenants with his decrees. He first spoke of the election and reprobation of angels: Concerning Angels, special providence is that by which their eternal condition is governed. It is, first, concerning good things, from which come their eternal happiness. It is, second, concerning wicked things, from which come their eternal miseries, as many as fell in the beginning from their original state.169

This abstract decree concerning angels’ eternal destinies differed from his teaching concerning humans, which included a historical mechanism to execute the decree: “Next, the providence concerning people, on the other hand, is that by which the external condition of man is governed by a covenant.”170 The difference Ussher articulated was that the predestination of angels is direct, but the special providence that governs human destinies is administered through covenants. God uses a covenantal apparatus as the “external condition” to direct his foreordained providence. God’s predestination governs through a context suitable and sensible to human existence: a covenant, a relationship that has conditions and which accommodates our abilities. Ussher consistently identified God’s first act of providence toward humanity as making a covenant with Adam: The special providence is that which concerns humans, either in this present world, or in the next. In this world [providence governs] through a

169 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 35v (Angelorum est quae aeterna eoru[m]‌conditio procuratur. Ea est 1o Bonoru[m] a qua aeterna eoru[m] falicitas. 2do Maloru[m] a qua aeterna eorum infelicitas ea quam plurimi a 1a origine deficientes). 170 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 35v (2 [secundum] providentia vero propria hominum est quâ externa hominu[m]‌conditio ex foedere p[ro]curatur).

Predestination  163 twofold covenant, which God was pleased to stipulate with man according to real conditions, namely, the Covenant of works, and the Covenant of Grace.171 now wee are come to his Providence upon men in this world. And in that Providence wee will consider the Covenant that He made with man.172 Q. How did God deale with Man, after he made him? A. He made a Covenant or agreement with Adam, and in him with all mankind.173 Q. How is the state of Mankind ordered? A. In this Life by the tenor of a two-​fold Covenant; and in the World to come, by the sentence of a two-​fold Judgement.174 Q. What is the speciall order of government which God useth towards mankind in this world, and in the world to come? A. In this world he ordereth them according to the tenor of a two-​fold Covenant, in the world to come according to the sentence of a two-​fold judgement.175

According to Ussher, God’s decree was executed within a covenantal context. This covenantal scheme that facilitates God’s decree did not soften predestination, but linked covenant and predestination in order to display that God is not arbitrary. Although the covenant of works upheld man’s responsibility for sin, it never diluted God’s sovereignty.176 Instead, covenant and predestination were compatible and complementary doctrines that interlocked and mutually supported each other within the Reformed system.

171 TCD MS 287, fol. 102v (Qua Hominem respicit; vel in praesenti hos secula e[st], vel in futuro. In hos saeculo per Foed[us] 2d [duplex] quod Deo placuit cu[m]‌homine ex realib[us] conditionib[us] pangere; Foedus sc[ilicet] operu[m], et Foedus Gratae). 172 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 21r (sermon on Genesis 3:1, dated July 3, 1642). 173 Ussher, Principles,  9–​10. 174 Ussher, Principles, 71. 175 Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 123. 176 Muller, Christ and the Decree, x, 68, 117–​20, 164–​71; Lyle D. Bierma, “Federal Theology in the Sixteenth Century:  Two Traditions?,” WTJ 45 (Fall 1983):  304–​21; Cornelis P. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 28–​30, 55–​56, 109–​11; contra Capern, “Slipperye Times and Dangerous Dayes,” esp. 45–​46; Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant, xxi–​xxii, 27, 48, 186, 200–​15; Weir, The Origins of Federal, esp. 63–​64.

164  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works

Conclusion Cunningham argued that “an extreme form of predestination remained a key part of Ussher’s Christian understanding” throughout his life.177 Despite the rhetorical flourish of the word “extreme,” Cunningham was right. The 1651 sermons and the 1653 revised catechisms show that Ussher’s mature theological works matched his earlier views on election. His Answer to . . . a Jesuite (1625) also shows that he saw himself in direct continuity with the early church fathers in terms of soteriology. Ussher shrewdly avoided direct confrontation with Charles I and Laud over predestination. The two authorities had imposed orders not to teach predestination, but Ussher found subtle ways to promote it. Moreover, Ussher’s predestinarian outlook never undermined, softened, or conflicted with his covenant theology. He saw the doctrines as interlocking and mutually informing doctrinal categories. This chapter focused on analyzing Ussher’s doctrine of predestination in relation to his context and his covenant theology, but there remains a broader historical point. Hunt observed that early modern historians tend to favor cultural examination to doctrinal analysis, but doctrinal analysis of predestination is “a point of entry into the religious world of sixteenth-​and seventeenth-​century England” because of “the challenge of explaining how a doctrine that now matters so little could once have mattered so much.”178 The preceding analysis of Ussher’s doctrine of predestination answered Hunt’s challenge to examine theological views as a point of entry into cultural understanding by contextualizing Ussher’s rhetorical approaches to advocate for divine election. Ussher needed real conviction to speak about a topic under increasing government pressure. Early modern preachers were not satisfied to be silenced, which is clear from the fact that religious suppression was at least one of the factors that sparked the English civil war.179 The doctrine was important because many people genuinely believed it was true. Theologians and laity, according to Hunt, thought this was a matter of speaking the truth about God. They were, after all, accountable to God. His perceived presence and people’s perceived responsibility to him powerfully motivate in any time period. That motivation at times even trumps the 177 Cunningham, Ussher and Bramhall, 53. 178 Hunt, Art of Hearing, 389. 179 This view goes back at least to Thomas Hobbes’ Behemoth (Hunt, Art of Preaching, 395), and is gaining increasing support from the scholarship in the vein of Tyacke, Lake, Fincham, and Como, as surveyed in this chapter’s introduction.

Predestination  165 seemingly dispassionate demands of civil authorities. It proved dangerous to step heavily upon people’s religious beliefs. God held primary place in the early modern metaphysical outlook, as he controlled every event in history. Further, early moderns thought God was worthy of honor for ordering the world. Ussher emphasized the predestining power of this sovereign God, but he also found it crucial to explain that God’s “special providence concerning people is that by which the external condition of man is governed by a covenant.”180 Predestination and covenant were simply two different ways to describe how the same God relates to humanity.

180 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 35v (2 providentia vero propria hominum est quâ externa hominu[m]‌conditio ex foedere p[ro]curatur).

5 The Covenant of Works and Christology Introduction James Ussher used the covenant of works to support a robust understanding of the person and work of Christ, and this chapter argues that he held an ecumenical doctrine of Christ’s person and a Reformed position on Christ’s work, but that he set both within a covenantal framework. He emphasized Christ as the solution to Adam’s failure in the covenant of works. Early modern Protestants and Catholics positioned themselves within the ecumenical tradition on doctrines of God and Christology, and Protestants labored to demonstrate that they stood inside the patristic bounds of the Christological discussions.1 Ussher’s Christology intersects with his covenant theology, as he used the covenant of works to bring new clarity to Christ’s priestly work. The Council of Chalcedon (451) determined the church’s formal position on Christology.2 Early Christological reflection was metaphysically oriented and focused on the person of Christ and the relationship between the divine nature and human nature.3 The Reformation did not jettison these metaphysical discussions, but it did develop new directions of reflection upon the intersection between Christology and other Reformation doctrines. Richard Muller summarized the situation: “Calvin’s Christology and, I believe, much of the Reformed Christology after him is neither a traditional ‘Christology from above’ nor a modern ‘Christology from below’ but a Christology developed out of the historical line of the covenant-​promise which points, as by a soteriological necessity, to the concrete, historical person of the God-​man.”4 1 Willem J. van Asselt, “Christ, Predestination, and Covenant in Post-​Reformation Reformed Theology,” in Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–​1800 (Oxford: OUP, 2016), 213–​17. 2 J. N.  D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 4th ed. (London:  Adam and Charles Black, 1968), 338–​43. 3 Brian E. Daley, “Antioch and Alexandria: Christology as Reflection on God’s Presence in History,” in Francesca Aran Murphy (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Christology (New York: OUP, 2015), 121–​ 37; Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 280–​343. 4 Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 29. The rest of Muller’s volume sustained this argument. On the issues underlying the differences between “Christology from above” Catholicity and the Covenant of Works. Harrison Perkins, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197514184.001.0001

Christology  167 Ussher’s views further substantiate Muller’s thesis in that Ussher framed Christology in Adamic, nature-​driven terms but emphasized the soteriological payoff of Christ’s recapitulation of Adam’s role in the covenant of works. Ussher’s Christology carries significant freight for understanding early modern religion. His views show that he was engaged with ideas and sources from the ancient and medieval church. It is well known that Protestants wrote extensively on church history, but Ussher’s Christology shows that this investigation was far more than a battle for the tradition.5 Although Ussher certainly contended against Roman Catholic claims about their tradition, he also appropriated arguments and material from traditional writing for his constructive doctrinal formulation. Since many Protestants studied the ancient and medieval sources during their university education, it could be suggested that early modern historians should deal with early modern descriptions of those sources rather than directly with the ancient and medieval material. At least in Ussher’s case, however, his work as an antiquarian requires those who wish to understand him to reckon firsthand with the ancient and medieval texts. His critical work on the Ignatian epistles still substantially withstands scrutiny, and that volume alone demonstrates his historical prowess and personal engagement with the primary sources.6 Other works also substantiate that Ussher was keenly attuned to a massive amount of historical sources.7 A proper understanding of Ussher’s work requires an exploration of traditional sources, so this chapter examines those that are pertinent to Ussher’s covenantal Christology. Ussher’s connection to the older theologians again shows that his covenant of works actually had an undergirding catholicity. Further, his reflection on the significance of the incarnation and his celebration of events within Christ’s earthly life in connection to Reformed soteriology generally, and the covenant of works particularly, show how he charged the outward trappings of ecclesiastical conformity with rigorous Reformed and “Christology from below,” see Michael S. Horton, Lord and Servant: A Covenant Christology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 159–​241. 5 Ulrich G. Leinsle, “Sources, Methods, and Forms of Early Modern Theology,” in Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology,  26–​27. 6 James Ussher, Polycarpi et Ignatii Epistolae (Oxford, 1644); J. E. L. Oulton, “Ussher’s Work as a Patristics Scholar and Church Historian,” Hermathena 88 (November 1956): 3–​11; Allen Brent, “The Ignatian Epistles and the Threefold Ecclesiastical Order,” Journal of Religious Studies 17, no. 1 (1992): 18–​32; Allen Brent, “The Enigma of Ignatius of Antioch,” JEH 57, no. 3 (July 2006): 429–​56; Paul Foster, “The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (Part I),” Expository Times 117, no. 12 (2006): 487–​89; Jospeph Azize, “Ignatius of Antioch on Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: Logic and Methodology,” Phronema 30, no. 2 (2015): 105–​36. 7 Bodl. MS e Mus 46; Bodl. MS e Mus 47.

168  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works divinity. Again, the sharp division between “Anglican” and “puritan” proves inadequate to explain the historical data and the fact that the roots of the Anglican tradition are more properly Reformed than many assume today.8 Ussher was highly traditional in conforming to some practices of the established church, but also thoroughly Reformed in doctrine. This chapter examines how Ussher linked Christology and the covenant of works. The first section outlines his ecumenical view of Christ’s person to demonstrate how he appropriated traditional understandings for use within his covenantal framework. The second describes, from the works of ancient theologian Irenaeus of Lyons and medieval archbishop Anselm of Canterbury, the doctrine of Christological “recapitulation,” which taught that Christ repeated Adam’s (and Israel’s) role to fulfill the call of God’s faithful servant. Their views were partial precursors of Ussher’s version of recapitulation. The third section analyzes how Ussher reframed Christological recapitulation in connection to the covenant of works. These sections highlight the standard themes of an intellectualist paradigm, the importance of God’s law, and Adam’s federal role, which together argue that Ussher resituated aspects of the broader Christological tradition within his contribution to covenant theology.

Ussher’s Ecumenical Christology This book’s thesis is that Ussher advanced Reformed covenant theology, and that it was an integrated framework for his body of doctrine. This might imply doctrinal innovation, but Ussher actually took pains to connect himself to the historical tradition of the church.9 He was overtly historical in

8 Kenneth Fincham and Jeremy Taylor, “Episcopalian Identity, 1640–​1662,” in Anthony Milton (ed.), The Oxford History of Anglicanism, Volume I:  Reformation and Identity, c.  1520–​ 1662 (New York: OUP, 2017), 457–​81; Peter Lake, “‘Puritans’ and ‘Anglicans’ in the History of the Post-​ Reformation English Church,” in Anthony Milton (ed.), The Oxford History of Anglicanism, Volume I:  Reformation and Identity, c.  1520–​1662 (New  York:  OUP, 2017), 352–​79; Stephen Hampton, Anti-​Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I (Oxford: OUP, 2008), 1–​38; Stephen Hampton, “The Manuscript Sermons of Archbishop John Williams,” JEH 62, no. 4 (2011):  707–​25; Stephen Hampton, “Richard Holdsworth and the Antinomian Controversy,” JTS 62, no. 1 (April 2011):  218–​50; Stephen Hampton, “Confessional Identity,” in Oxford History of Anglicanism, 210–​27. 9 James Ussher, Gravissimae quaestionis de Christianarum ecclesiarum (1613); James Ussher, A Discourse of the Religion Anciently Professed by the Irish and the British (1631); James Ussher, Gotteschalci et Predestinatianae Controversiae (Dublin, 1631); James Ussher, Britannicarum ecclesiarum antiquitates (Dublin, 1639).

Christology  169 how he argued his views, and he was committed to the Scripture as the ultimate norm of the church’s teaching, but he never went against the ecumenical consensus.10 He defended Trinitarianism against the Socinian John Biddle, and he was committed to traditional Christology.11 Although he brought new clarity and harmonization to the full theological body through his use of covenant, the individual doctrines were all classically Protestant. Ussher’s ecumenical position on Christ’s person requires no major defense. In a series of sermons on Hebrews 9:14 preached in Felsted just after he was promoted to archbishop in 1625, he gave very detailed explanations of how Christ is the one person of the Son of God existing now in two natures.12 Ian Clary demonstrated that the Christology in Ussher’s 1638 treatise Immanuel corresponded to that of the Council of Chalcedon.13 Ussher further preached early in 1648 about the two natures of Christ: “In his Person, consider His two natures in one Person: He could not have suffered unlesse He had bene man: and yet By the Hipostatical Union, God is sayd to have shed His bloud 20. Acts. 28.”14 In the 1653 edition of his catechisms, he maintained the ecumenical position that Christ was one divine person who exists in two natures. Q. How many natures be there in Christ? A. Two; the Godhead, and the Manhood: remaining still distinct in their substance, properties and actions. Q. How many persons hath he? A. Only one; which is the person of the Son of God. for the second person in the Trinity took upon him, not the person but the nature of man; to wit, a body and a reasonable soule: which do not subsist alone, (as we see in all other men) but are wholly sustained in the person of the Son of God.15

10 James Ussher, An Answer to a Challenge Made by a Jesuit Living in Ireland (Dublin, 1624), 35–​44. 11 Paul C.  H. Lim, Mystery Unveiled:  The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England (New York: OUP, 2012), 39. 12 Bodl. MS Eng. th.e.25, fol. 4r–​29v (two sermons on Hebrews 9:14, the first of which is dated “New yeares day” 1625 [1626]). 13 Ian Hugh Clary, “‘The Conduit to Conveigh Life’:  James Ussher’s Immanuel and Patristic Christology,” SBET 30, no. 2 (Autumn 2012): 171–​76; Ian Hugh Clary, “ ‘The Conduit to Conveigh Life:’ An Evaluation of James Ussher’s Immanuel in Light of Patristic Christology,” ThM thesis, Toronto Baptist Seminary and Bible College, 2010, 98–​125. 14 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 53r (sermon on Philippians 2:8, dated January 9, 1647 [1648]). 15 James Ussher, The Principles of Christian Religion (1653), 84–​85. This was unchanged from the 1645 edition; The Principles of Christian Religion (1645), 76–​77.

170  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works He emphasized that the divine nature provides the whole person who exists as the Incarnate Christ.16 He wrote, “First, his divine nature or Godhead, which maketh the person.”17 This is in line with the theology of Cyril of Alexandria, whose Christology was important to the debates at the Council of Chalcedon.18 When compared with traditional formulas on Christology, it is clear that Ussher said nothing new about the metaphysical aspects of Christ’s person. The same language appeared in the Definition of Chalcedon (451) about Christ being the one divine person, having two natures, and having a reasonable soul and body. There is even the emphasis that the properties of each nature remain distinct. We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin . . . the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and on Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.19

This statement of the early church established the acceptable, orthodox terminology regarding the person of Christ. In this view, it was the person of the eternal divine Son who assumed a real human nature—​not a full human person, since the divine person was fully the person subsisting in the human nature—​and all that a human nature entailed, including a human mind, will, and soul. Still, the divine person’s immutable divine nature never conflated with his assumed human nature in such a way as to confuse the two and create a third, mixed nature. Ussher followed this creedal thought without

16 Richard Snoddy, The Soteriology of James Ussher:  The Act and Object of Saving Faith (New York: OUP, 2014), 47; Mark W. Elliot, “Christology in the Seventeenth Century,” in Francesca Aran Murphy (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Christology (Oxford: OUP, 2015), 300. 17 James Ussher, A Bodie of Divinitie (1645), 160. 18 Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids, MI: RHB, 2012), 339. 19 Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes, 3 vols. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1882), 2:62.

Christology  171 deviation, and the items he mentioned in his catechisms and preaching (see the preceding quote) have even been named as the “leading ideas” of the Chalcedonian Definition.20 It should not be surprising that Ussher was so traditional on doctrines in the creedal tradition. One burden of Ussher’s career was to establish the historical pedigree of his doctrinal beliefs.21 Ussher’s unoriginality regarding Christ’s person shows that whatever advances he made in explaining Christ’s work in covenantal terms, he never discarded the tradition. Instead he sought to codify the Reformed faith’s teaching in covenantal categories by building upon the definitive ecumenical consensus. Just as he built his doctrine of the covenant of works proper in conversation with aspects of the entire tradition, so he did with Christology. As we have just seen, he was ecumenical concerning Christ’s person, and this chapter argues that he reframed Christ’s work in covenantal categories. The next section shows that even though the covenantal terminology Ussher used for Christ’s work was an advancement on prior Christological expressions, he still used discussions about Christ’s work that were embedded in the ancient and medieval tradition.

The Idea of Christological Recapitulation in Church History Ussher was conscious of the Christian tradition and anxious to prove he aligned with it. There is, therefore, every reason to expect that there were precursors to his views in the history of the church, and attempts should be made to locate them. This attempt is not an arbitrary search that might reveal coincidental correspondence between Ussher’s views and those of prior theologians, but, instead, it marks how Ussher was historically minded and labored to recover the past and shape his theology in light of it. Although this brief section is somewhat of an excursus away from our direct focus on Ussher, it is an important preface to help us understand how he shaped his Christology. Considerations about Christ’s person and how to parse that doctrine in terms of his deity and his eternal relationship to God the Father were



20 Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 1:30–​33. 21 Snoddy, Soteriology,  61–​67.

172  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works prominent in the church’s first few centuries.22 As we have seen, Ussher accepted the ecumenical tradition about Christ’s deity and personhood, but there was another strand of Christological thinking in addition to those metaphysical discussions that was present even in the earliest Christian writings. This other strand, which complemented the metaphysical reflections, was a functional or economic Christology. This trajectory examined Christ’s role in history and how he fulfilled the promises God made in the Hebrew Scripture. When Christ adopted actions or roles ascribed only to God, or when he received worship typically reserved only for God, this also constituted an argument for his deity.23 The roles Christ adopted in parallel with Old Testament theological narrative were also used to explore Christ’s work. This narrative model of interpreting Christ’s work set his actions in contrast with the demand for a faithful Israel, and what it meant that Israel failed to fulfill the requirement of righteousness. This section examines two examples from the ancient and medieval church that used a Christological model drawing on the narrative of Scripture as its finds fulfillment in Christ. This model is called Christological recapitulation because Christ assumes the role of Adam and Israel, and fulfills the requirement for righteousness. Ussher drew on this significant Christological model, linked the work of Christ to the demand for a faithful Adam and a faithful Israel, and reworked this theme within a covenantal framework.24 These connections demonstrate that Ussher was engaged in conversation with the ecumenical tradition, even in areas where he cast it in new terminology, and it gives insight into the set of ideas that makes his theological construction rational for his time.25

22 Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy:  An Approach to Fourth-​Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: OUP, 2006), 11–​269. 23 This line of argument is still explored in current biblical studies, e.g., Chris Tilling, Paul’s Divine Christology (Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 2015); Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord:  Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, 3rd ed. (London:  Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015); Michael F. Bird, Craig A. Evans, Simon J. Gathercole, Charles E. Hill, and Chris Tilling, How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014); Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: “God Crucified” and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2008). 24 Christopher Earl Caughey, “Puritan Responses to Antinomianism in the Context of Reformed Covenant Theology, 1630–​1696,” PhD diss., Trinity College, Dublin, 2013; Brenton C. Ferry, “Works in the Mosaic Covenant: A Reformed Taxonomy,” in Bryan D. Estelle, J. V. Fesko, and David VanDrunen (eds.), The Law Is Not of Faith:  Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009), 76–​105; Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” in Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (eds.), Drawn into Controversie:  Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism (Göttingen: V&R, 2011): 183–​203. 25 Quentin Skinner, “Interpretation, Rationality and Truth,” in Visions of Politics, Volume 1: Regarding Method (Cambridge: CUP, 2002), 27–​56.

Christology  173 Ussher listed Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–​c. 200) as an important figure of the early church, and Irenaeus was a precursor for some aspects of Ussher’s Christology.26 Irenaeus deepened the arguments for the recapitulation model, which “dominates the theology of the second century.”27 He articulated his Christology within “his own tremendous vision of Christ as the second Adam, Who summed up in Himself the whole sequence of mankind, including the first Adam, thereby sanctifying it and inaugurating a new, redeemed race of men.”28 This functional aspect of Christology, however, did not mitigate his emphasis on the Son’s preexistence, as it actually demanded an ontologically divine agent to perform the task.29 This theological trajectory’s distinguishing feature relevant to Ussher’s Christology, however, is the economic role Jesus played as the second Adam in correcting and perfecting the role of the first Adam.30 Irenaeus taught that Jesus “repeats the life of the first man,” but this repetition linked to other mutually informing doctrines.31 The connection between recapitulation and obedience is crucial for Ussher’s covenant theology because, as seen in previous chapters, he viewed Adam’s disobedience in the Garden, which violated the covenant of works, as a pivotal historical moment. Irenaeus did speak of a covenant with Adam, and, although it is too much to identify his teaching with the full doctrine of the covenant of works, he did include elements of it.32 One example of this continuity is how he outlined the necessity of Adam’s obedience for eternal life: So too, service unto God in fact supplies God with nothing, nor does God have need of human obedience, but he grants life, and incorruptibility, and eternal glory to the ones who follow and serve him, supplying benefit to his servants, on account of that they serve, and to his followers, on account of that they follow. Yet he does not benefit from them. In fact, he is wealthy, perfect, and has no need. God searches for service from men, however, so 26 Bodl. MS Add. D. 36, fol. 127r. 27 Eric Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons (Cambridge: CUP, 2001), 97; Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 170. 28 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 147. 29 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 148. 30 Osborn, Irenaeus, 97. 31 Osborn, Irenaeus, 99. Osborn discussed the major themes connected to this doctrine in Irenaeus, 100–​104. 32 Sanctus Irenaeus, Libros quinque adversus haereses, ed. W. Wigan Harvey, 2 vols. (Cambridge:  Typis Academicis, 1857), 3.11.11 (2:50). I  have cited the page numbers of this edition in parentheses along with the book, chapter, and section divisions of Against Heresies because the chapter divisions were significantly altered in the typically cited translation: Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.8 in ANF 1:429.

174  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works that, since he is good and merciful, he might benefit those who persevere in his service. In as much as God in fact needs nothing, so much man needs of communion with God. The glory of man is in fact to persevere and remain permanently in the service of God.33

Irenaeus did not detail Adam’s relationship to the natural law or this relationship’s covenantal context, but he did suggest an eschatological focus of Adam’s obedience, as did Ussher. Irenaeus linked Christ’s accomplishment to what Adam should have accomplished: Indeed, we have shown the Son of God had no beginning because he was always existing with the Father. But when he became incarnate, and was made man, he recapitulated the long line of humanity in himself, supplying salvation to us in short fashion, so that we recover in Christ Jesus what we destroyed in Adam, specifically, to be according to the image and likeness of God.34

The preexistent Son of God became incarnate with the goal of renewing Adam’s task. These quotations about Irenaeus’ doctrine of recapitulation, however, show only the first points of this doctrine. J. N. D. Kelly argued that Irenaeus deepened the concept of recapitulation and outlined comprehensive doctrinal links by reflecting primarily on Paul’s letters.35 This Pauline connection is borne out in Against Heresies: If, therefore, the first Adam had a human father, and was born from the seed of a man, they could rightly say also that that second Adam was begotten from Joseph. If, however, [the first Adam] was actually taken from

33 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, 4.25.1 (2:184) (Sic et servitus erga Deum, Deo quidem nihil praestat, nec opus est Deo humano obsequio; ipse autem sequentibus et servientibus ei, vitam et incorruptelam et gloriam aeternam attribuit, beneficium praestans servientibus sibi, ob id quod serviunt, et sequentibus, ob id quod sequuntur; sed non beneficium ab eis percipiens: est enim dives perfectus et sine indigentia. Propter hoc autem exquirit Deus ab hominibus servitutem, ut quoniam est bonus et misericors benefaciat eis qui perseverant in servitude ejus. In quantum enim Deus nullius indiget, in tantum homo indigent Dei communione. Haec enim Gloria hominis, perseverare ac permanare in Dei servitute); Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.14.1 in ANF 1:478. 34 Irenaeus, adversus haereses, 3.19.1 (2:95) (Ostendimus enim, quia non tunc coepit Filius Dei, existens semper apud Patrem; sed quando incarnatus est, et homo factus, longam hominum expositionem in seipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salutem praestans, ut quod perdideramus in Adam, id est, secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse Dei, hoc in Christo Jesu reciperemus); Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.18.1 in ANF 1:446. 35 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 170.

Christology  175 the ground, and formed by the Word of God, then it was required that the one who was the Word himself making recapitulation of Adam in himself to have a likeness of in his own generation [to that of the first Adam]. Why, therefore, did God not take dirt again, but instead worked the form to come about from Mary? It was so that there would not be another form, nor would there be another form that must be saved, but so that the exact same form would be recapitulated, and the likeness between the forms preserved.36

Irenaeus emphasized the parallels between Adam’s work and Christ’s work, arguing even that a reason for Christ’s virgin birth was that Adam was formed from dust and so had no natural father either. Still, obedience took prominence: “The essence of Adam’s sin, it should be noted, consisted in disobedience. But that sin entailed consequences for the whole race; Irenaeus has no doubt that the first man’s disobedience is the source of the general sinfulness and mortality of mankind, as also of their enslavement to the Devil.”37 He argued, on the other hand, that Christ’s perfect obedience constituted the foremost act of salvation: “This only worked because the obedience of Jesus was directed to the same father as was the disobedience of Adam.”38 Irenaeus clearly presupposed that a representative figure of humanity needed to render to God a righteousness according to the law, not because of a need in God but because of the way God had created the race as summed up in Adam.39 This overview demonstrates that Irenaeus’ understanding of the necessity of Adam’s obedience foreshadowed in many ways what Ussher taught about the covenant of works, and demonstrates

36 Irenaeus, adversus haereses, 3.31.1 (2:120–​21) (Greek: Εἰ τοίνυν ὁ πρῶτος Ἀδὰμ ἔσχε πατέρα ἄνθρωπον, καὶ ἐκ σπὲρματος ἐγεννὴθη, εἰκὸς ἧν καὶ τὸν δεὺτερον Ἀδὰμ λὲγειν ἐξ Ἰωςὴφ γεγεννῆ σθαι. Εἰ δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἐκ γῆς ἐλὴφθη, πλὰστης δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς, ἔδει καὶ τὸν ἀνακεφαλαιούμενον εἰς αὐτὸν, ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ πεπλασμένον ἄνθρωπον, τὴν αὐτὴν ἐκείνῳ τῆς γεννήσεως ἔχειν ὁμοιότητα. Εἰς τί οὖν πάλιν οὐκ ἔλαβε χοῦν ὁ Θεὸς, ἀλλ᾽ἐκ Μαρίας ἐνήργησε τὴν πλάσιν γενέσθαι; Ἵνα μὴ ἄλλη πλάσις γένηται, μηδὲ ἄλλο τὸ σωζόμενον ᾗ, ἀλλ᾽αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος ἀνακεφαλαιωθῇ, τηρουμένης τῆς ὁμοιότητος. Ἄγαν οὖν πίπτουσι καὶ οἱ λέγοντες, αὐτὸν μηδὲν εἰληφέναι ἐκ τῆς παρθένου, ἵν᾽ἐκβά λωσι τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς κληρονομίαν, καὶ ἀποβάλωνται τὴν ὁμοιότητα. Latin: Si igitur primus Adam habuit patrem hominem, et ex semine viri natus est; merito dicerent, et secundum Adam ex Joseph esse generatum. Si autem ille de terra quidem sumtus est, et Verbo Dei plasmatus est, oportebat id ipsum Verbum recapitulationem Adae in semetipsum faciens, ejusdem generationis habere similtudinem. Quare igitur non iterum sumsit limum Deus, sed ex Maria operatus est plasmationem fieri? Ut non alia plasmatio fieret, neque alia esset plasmatio quae salvaretur, sed eadem ipsa recapitularetur, servata similitudine); Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.21.10 in ANF 1:454. 37 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 171. 38 Osborn, Irenaeus, 100. 39 Denis Minns, Irenaeus: An Introduction (Chippenham: T&T Clark International, 2010), 106–​7.

176  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works that the second Adam, Jesus Christ, perfectly rendered that required obedience.40 Irenaeus’ hermeneutic is relevant to the doctrine of recapitulation as well, as the regula fidei was a prevalent hermeneutical method in the early church.41 The “rule of faith” focused on articulating world history within a divinely orchestrated narrative framework, which was “centered in the incarnation of Jesus Christ.”42 Its purpose was to deal with how Jesus Christ fulfilled the role played by the one God of Israel from the Old Testament.43 Irenaeus was a primary proponent of this method with its starting point in Christology.44 This hermeneutic was clear in some of the passages previously cited, wherein he made direct connections between the narratives of Adam and Christ. Most obvious, perhaps, was the example that Christ was born of a virgin because Adam was made from the ground so that neither would have an earthly father. This narrative shaped the way that Irenaeus painted the role of Christ. As will be shown, Ussher also argued for a form of Christological recapitulation, but did not argue that position by emphasizing the narrative. He reasoned more categorically in terms of the need for a covenantal representative to provide active obedience. Theologians in various times drew the same conclusion from Scripture even though each was arguing from contemporary hermeneutical methods. Ussher’s case no doubt relates to how he continually interacted with the broader tradition. 40 Minns, Irenaeus, 108–​17; Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 170–​74; Osborn, Irenaeus, 97–​140; Trevor Hart, “Irenaeus, Recapitulation and Physical Redemption,” in Trevor Hart and Daniel Thimell (eds.), Christ in Our Place: The Humanity of God in Christ for the Reconciliation of the World: Essays Presented to James Torrance (Exeter: Paternoster, 1989), 152–​81; Jan Tjeerd Nielsen, Adam and Christ in the Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons:  An Examination of the Function (Groningen:  Van Gorcum, 1968); John VanMaaren, “The Adam-​Christ Typology in Paul and Its Development in the Early Church Fathers,” TynBul 64, no. 2 (2013): 281–​85; Irwin W. Reist, “The Christology of Irenaeus,” JETS 13, no. 4 (Fall 1970): 247–​49; Samuel George, “The Emergence of Christology in the Early Church—​ a Methodological Survey with Particular Reference to the Anti-​Heretical Polemics of Irenaeus of Lyons,” AJT 24, no. 2 (October 2010): 219–​53. 41 Paul M. Blowers, “The Regula Fidei and the Narrative Character of Early Christian Faith,” Pro Ecclesia 6, no. 2 (1997): 199–​228; Tomas Bokedal, “The Rule of Faith: Tracing Its Origins,” JTI 7, no. 2 (2013): 233–​55; George, “Emergence of Christology,” 219–​53; Paul Hartog, “The ‘Rule of Faith’ and Patristic Biblical Exegesis,” TJ 28, no. 1 (2007): 65–​86; John F. Johnson, “Analogia Fidei as Hermeneutical Principle,” The Springfielder 36, no. 4 (March 1973): 249–​59; H. Wayne Johnson, “The ‘Analogy of Faith’ and Exegetical Methodology: A Preliminary Discussion of Relationships,” JETS 31, no. 1 (March 1988): 69–​80; Zdravko Jovanović, “St. Irenaeus, Regula Fidei and the Ecclesiological Context of Interpretation,” Philotheos 13 (2013): 134–​40; Nathan MacDonald, “Israel and the Old Testament Story in Irenaeus’s Presentation of the Rule of Faith,” JTI 3, no. 2 (2009): 281–​98. 42 Blowers, “Regula Fidei,” 215, 202; Bokedal, “Rule of Faith,” 234; Hartog, “Rule of Faith,” 70–​74. 43 Hartog, “Rule of Faith,” 68, 74–​76; Bokedal, “Rule of Faith,” 244–​45. 44 MacDonald, “Israel and the Old Testament,” 285–​98; George, “Emergence of Christology,” 232–​38; Hartog, “Rule of Faith,” 66–​68; Blowers, “Regula Fidei,” 216ff.; Bokedal, “Rule of Faith,” esp. 237–​39.

Christology  177 Whereas Irenaeus promoted recapitulation in the ancient church, Anselm of Canterbury adopted a version of the theme in the medieval era, which shows that the idea was not peculiar to one period (though it took different forms). Admittedly, Anselm did not present the Adam-​Christ parallel as tightly or clearly as did Irenaeus, but the point is simply to indicate that theologians argued connections between the roles of Adam and Christ before Ussher’s time. Anselm premised Christology on an eschatological principle built into creation, which was seen in Chapter 2 to be an important feature in Thomas Aquinas’ theology as well:45 Let us posit, therefore, that the incarnation of God and the things which we say about him as man has never happened, and let it be agreed between us that man was created for a state of blessedness which cannot be had in this life, and that no one can arrive at that state if his sins have not been got rid of, and that no man can pass through this life without sin; let us also accept the other matters in which we need to have faith in order to attain salvation.46

His work Cur Deus Homo? was organized as a conversation between Anselm and Boso and is a rationale for the incarnation’s necessity. The principle that persons have to render proper honor to God was embedded throughout the work, but he clarified here that sinners cannot obtain the most blessed state that would be had by rendering this honor. He further explained this eschatological dimension of creation: “If man had not sinned, he would have been bound to undergo change into incorruptibility.”47 Sin now prevents that and must be removed.48 “Therefore, everyone who sins is under an obligation to repay to God the honour which he has violently taken from him, and this is the satisfaction which every sinner is obliged to give to God.”49 Forgiveness of sin requires punishment, but there still must be positive obedience to receive a reward even when a person is without sin: “Everyone knows that the righteousness of mankind is subject to a law whereby it is rewarded by God with a recompense proportional to its magnitude.”50 This is a basic form of the ideas that Ussher reformulated within the covenant of works. That is not

45 Dániel Deme, The Christology of Anselm of Canterbury (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2003), 93–​94. 46 AMW, 282.

47 AMW, 317, 282, 329.

48 Deme, Christology, 95.

49 AMW, 283.

50 AMW, 284; Deme, Christology,  81–​90.

178  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works to say they are identical, or even that Anselm’s doctrine was heading in exactly that direction, but his points were in one trajectory toward the doctrine of the covenant between God and Adam.51 Anselm argued that God did not abandon his plan to consummate creation. He went so far to say, “It is necessary, therefore, with regard to the nature of mankind, God should finish what he has begun.”52 He placed high priority on what is “fitting,” and this consummation is fitting. This consummation will happen credited “entirely to his grace,” but there must be “someone who is God and man” for there to be recompense for sin. Only God can do this, but only man is responsible.53 There is a God-​man because only God in human nature can render what man owed to God.54 Christ’s death paid the debt for sin for “those for whose salvation . . . he became a man.” He rendered the payment of righteousness to God, and people can receive the reward that belongs to him.55 The argument of Cur Deus Homo? is very linear, and the themes of Adam, owed honor, and the necessity of rendered satisfaction run throughout it. It is not the exact argument of Irenaeus’ recapitulation theory, but the basic structure of Christ succeeding where Adam failed is common to both, and both cast Christology in Adamic terms.56 Adam and Christ were to render honor to God by completely submitting to his will. In the case of Christ, however, that mainly consisted in paying a penal debt.57 Since Christ did not owe this penal debt for himself, it constituted an active pursuit of God’s will.58 The interpretive difference between Anselm’s emphasis on the necessity to render honor and Ussher’s arguments about Adam’s need to fulfill righteousness is located in the contrasting frameworks. Anselm’s discussion had the background of medieval feudalism, whereas Ussher used covenantal categories.59 51 Snoddy, Soteriology, 91. 52 AMW, 317. 53 AMW, 319–​21; Deme, Christology,  101–​9. 54 AMW, 348. 55 AMW, 353–​54. 56 Joan M. Nuth, “Two Medieval Soteriologies: Anselm of Canterbury and Julian of Norwich,” TS 53 (1992): 624–​27, 632, 633; David Neelands, “Crime, Guilt, and the Punishment of Christ: Traveling Another Way with Anselm of Canterbury and Richard Hooker,” ATR 88, no. 2 (Spring 2006): 204–​6; George Huntston Williams, “The Sacramental Presuppositions of Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo,” CH 26, no. 3 (September 1957): 245–​74. 57 Deme, Christology, 192–​ 95; J. Patout Burns, “The Concept of Satisfaction in Medieval Redemption Theory,” TS 36, no. 2 (May 1975): 286–​89. 58 Deme, Christology, 194–​95. 59 Nuth, “Two Medieval Soteriologies,” 622–​23; although not as historical, Nicholas Cohen, “Feudal Imagery or Christian Tradition? A Defense of the Rationale for Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo,” SAJ 2, no. 1 (Fall 2004): 22–​29.

Christology  179

Ussher on Christ as the Second Adam Reformed theology in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was unremarkable in the way it described Christ’s person, but earlier Reformed writers did establish new ways of talking about Christ’s work.60 Ussher described Christ’s role as Savior in covenantal terms consistently throughout his career, and he rooted his Christological formulations in the Adamic task. Christ was sent to succeed where Adam failed. Although Ussher’s teaching was not identical to the views of Irenaeus and Anselm, there is an unmistakable echo of the Adam-​Christ pattern that can be described as a version of recapitulation.61 His version, however, used covenantal categories. Ussher discussed Christ’s work within a covenantal framework in all of his theological works. It may be helpful to demonstrate immediately that he reset a consciously ecumenical Christology within a new tradition of covenant theology. He explicitly summarized the Athanasian Creed on Christ’s person in his 1643–​44 lectures in Oxford and inserted covenantal terminology concerning Christ’s work: The summary of this administration is Jesus, the son of the virgin Mary, being the Christ whom God promised through the prophets to send, was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born from the virgin Mary. Then he was placed under the covenant of law to satisfy undoubtedly the penalty owed for the sins of human beings, and enduring through suffering those things, which he suffered in his human nature, chiefly, what he suffered under Pontius Pilate. He suffered until he was crucified, died, and was buried. And he descended to hell. Then, by rendering absolutely everything that the commands of the law had instructed to do.62

The insertion of covenantal notions into traditional language is unmistakably explicit. Ussher added the statements about Christ coming to 60 Elliot, “Christology in the Seventeenth Century,” 298–​ 301; Beeke and Jones, Puritan Theology, 335. 61 Snoddy, Soteriology, 91. 62 Queen’s College, Oxford, MS 217, fol. 39v (Ejus summa est Jesum filium Mariae virginis esse [Chris]tum illum quem Deus p[er] p[ro]phetas se missurum p[ro]miserat, eunde[m]‌conceptu[m] esse à Sp[irit]u S[anc]to et natum ex Mariâ virgine. tum legis foed[e]r[is] Satissfecisse nim[irum] poenam peccatis ho[min]ium debitam subeundo et p[er] passiones sustinendo quas in humana na[tu]râ p[er] tulit. imprimis a[utem] quas sub Pontio Pilato p[er]pessus est dum crucifixus mortuus et sepultus est. atque ad inferum descendit. deinde pr[ae]stando omnia quaecunque legis mandata fieri pr[ae] ceperant).

180  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works satisfy the covenant of law directly within a citation of the creedal tradition. Furthermore, this passage was part of the discussion of Christ as “the mediator of the Evangelical covenant.”63 This indicates that Ussher thought the section of the Athanasian Creed devoted to Christ’s work concerns Christ’s office particularly as mediator of the covenant of grace, which further evidences that he understood and reset traditional catholic themes within Reformed covenant theology. Not only do these glosses prove the argument that Ussher thought about ecumenical Christology in covenantal terms, but they also represent a refinement of the tradition toward a more integrated explanation of the work of salvation under covenantal headings. Ussher’s development of traditional material extended further. Drawing from Charles the Great’s book written against the use of images, he argued in An Answer to a Challenge Made by a Jesuite in Ireland (1624); The Arke of the Covenant is said to signifie our Lord and Saviour, in whom alone we have the Covenant of peace wit the Father. Over which the Propitiatory is said to be placed: because above the Commandments either of the Law, or of the Gospel, which are founded in him, the mercy of the said Mediator taketh place; by which, not by the workes of Law which we have done, neither willing, nor running, but by his having mercy upon us, we are saved.64

Ussher saw Christ’s work as pictured in Israel’s practices under the Mosaic covenant. He believed the lid from the Ark of the Covenant symbolized Christ, and he again interpreted the Ark’s lid (the mercy seat) as typological of Christ’s presence in Immanuel (1638).65 This Christological interpretation of the Old Testament indicates that although Ussher did not make massive use of a narrative hermeneutic, he still aligned with Irenaeus’ regula fidei that read the Old Testament story with Christological principles. This is not quite the doctrine of recapitulation, but it evidences another point of contact between Ussher and Irenaeus. Ussher’s interpretation also reveals an indication of how he saw the Old Testament as part of one unified plan of salvation. Although the covenantal emphasis of his Christology was that Christ was the second Adam and fulfilled the covenant of works, Christ’s work was the basis 63 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 38v ([Chris]tus est mediator foederis Evangelici). 64 James Ussher, An Answer to a Challenge Made by a Jesuite in Ireland (Dublin, 1624), 520–​21. 65 James Ussher, Immanuel, or the Mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God (Dublin, 1638),  13–​14.

Christology  181 of a single way of salvation across the whole Bible, and Reformed Protestants called that unified plan the covenant of grace. Christology, therefore, was the bridge between the covenants of works and grace in that what was a covenant of works for Christ is a covenant of grace for Christians. This bridge between covenants is where Christ’s Adamic role appears in Ussher’s theology: Wee all hang upon Adam, if hee had stood, wee had stood: hee fallinge, wee fell: So in the Second Covenant, Christ was Hee wee hung upon: 1 Cor. 15.47 The first man is of the Earth, earthly. The Second man is the Lord from Heaven. There were millions of men between these two; yet upon these two, did all men hang: As Adam conveyes damnation by Generation, so Christ conveies Salvation by Regeneration: 53. Esay. 10.66

He made this intersection of covenants explicit in a set of questions from his 1653 catechism. Q. What was required of Christ for making peace and reconciliation betwixt God and man? A. That he should satisfie the first Covenant whereunto man was tyed. Q. Wherein was Christ to make satisfaction to the first Covenant? A. In performing that righteousnesse which the Law of God did require of Man: and in bearing the punishment which was due unto Man for breaking of the same Law. Q. How did Christ performe that righteousness which Gods Law requireth of Man? A. In that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, without all spot of original corruption; and lived most holy all the daies of his life, without all actuall sin. Q. How did he beare the punishment which was due unto Man for breaking Gods Law? A. In that he was willingly for man sake made himself subject to the curse of the Law, both in body and soule: and humbling himself even unto the death, offered up unto his Father a perfect sacrifice for the sinnes of the world.67 66 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 52v (sermon on Philippians 2:6, dated December 19, 1647). 67 This was changed from Ussher, Principles (1645), 20, which read, “for all the sinne of Gods children.” The later edition was clearly amended to reflect Ussher’s hypothetical universalism. The citation of John 3:16–​17 was not in the 1645 edition but was added in 1653.

182  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Q. What is required of Man for obtaining the benefits of the Gospell? A. That he receive Christ Jesus whom God doth freely offer unto him.68

The rationale here is that believers escape the punishment due to them for breaking God’s law because Christ endured the law’s curse for them. This reasoning draws the first connection to Anselm’s work on the necessity of the incarnation, and this passage provides a transition from Ussher’s links to Irenaeus to his links to Anselm.69 Anselm thought that there had to be a satisfaction or punishment for the failure to render proper honor to God. Ussher developed the same principle of necessary satisfaction that Anselm set within feudal categories and reworked it in terms of a violated covenant. Instead of the need to render honor, Ussher said there was a need to fulfill the law, and since the law had been violated, the law’s curse must be satisfied. Ussher’s language of “curse of the law” came from Scripture, particularly Galatians 2–​4. Anselm’s categories, although in some ways conceptually parallel to Ussher’s biblical language, seemed to be more directly linked to his explanatory apparatus of medieval feudalism. This terminological shift is further evidence that Reformed theologians such as Ussher were developing their doctrines in close connection with exegesis. Still, one passage from Ussher reads as if Anselm himself could have been the author: “His suretye therfore being to satisfye in his stead; none will be found fitt to undertake such a payment, but he who is both God and Man.”70 Again, “we see it was necessary for the satisfaction of this debte, that our Mediatour should be Man: but he that had no more in him then a Man, could never be able to go thorough [sic] with so great a work.”71 Perhaps most directly, “So the first p[ar]t of his mediat[i]‌on was to take up the matter betweene God and us. God was highly dishonored and it was not for his honor to passe by this iniquitie from sinfull flesh, therefore he must redeeme us w[i]th a price.”72 Whether Ussher was actually drawing on Cur Deus Homo? or not, these arguments certainly had Anselmian form.73 This is one example where Reformed Protestants were

68 Ussher, Principles (1653), 19–​21. 69 Snoddy, Soteriology, 91. 70 Ussher, Immanuel, 24. 71 Ussher, Immanuel, 33. 72 Bodl, MS Eng. th.e.25, fol. 22r (sermon on Hebrews 9:14, dated “New yeares day” 1625 [1626]). 73 Ussher did cite Anselm, even if not for doctrinal construction; James Ussher, An Answer to a Challenge Made by a Jesuit in Ireland (Dublin, 1624), 160, 446, 513, 515; James Ussher, A Discourse of the Religion Anciently Professed by the Irish and Brittish (1631), 32, 78, 84; James Ussher, Historia dogmatica controversiae inter orthodoxos et pontificos (1689), 136–​37.

Christology  183 seeking reform, not radical change. Ussher looked to revitalize traditional, even medieval concepts within renewed biblical terminology. These conceptual links to Anselm show up in the way that Ussher discussed Christ’s satisfaction of the law’s curse in terms of debt: “If Christ had not assu[m]‌ed ou[r] Nature, and therein made satisfaction for the injury offered to the Divine Majesty, God would not have come unto a Treaty of Peace with us, more than with the fallen Angels, whose nature the Son did not assume.”74 He was further willing to use more than one method of explaining how the work of Christ paid the penalty for sin: This Humiliation of Christ, makes way to his obedience:  his Active and Passive obedience. Obedience is a Dett:  And Sinne Is a Dett. There is the Principal, and the Penalty, w[hi]ch growes due to God upon our default: And therefore our Suerty, who stands chargeable with all our detts. As He maketh Paiment for the one, By his Active, so must Hee make Amends for the other. By his Passive obedience our mediator must performe That w[hi]ch wee were to Performe.75

This sermon shows how Ussher took the idea of satisfaction and debt paying from the Anselmian tradition and extended it to refer to the Reformed categories of Christ’s active and passive obedience. In this connection, he summarized previous sermons from the same series on the priestly office of Christ. The first part of Christ’s priesthood was his satisfaction of God’s justice, and Ussher’s words reflect Anselm’s teaching: For there was on our Part A Principal Det to bee paid, And a penalty: the Principal Det was obedience: And wee were to bee freed from this or to dye in Prison everlastingly: wee were not able to pay this dett, therefore Christ Jesus, Gods Fellow, as it is in Zachary, did performe obedience, And by his suffrings, By his Active, and Passive obedience, did give just satisfaction.76

Even at the beginning, humanity—​namely, Adam—​owed active obedience to the law. That debt needed to be paid. Once Adam sinned, humanity’s debt was 74 The Correspondence of James Ussher, 1600–​56, 3 vols., ed. Elizabethanne Boran (Dublin: Irish Manuscripts Commission, 2015), 1:140 (letter to Ezekiel Culverwell dated March 3, 1618). 75 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 53v (sermon on Philippians 2:8, dated January 9, 1647 [1648]). 76 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 54r (sermon on Philippians 2:8, dated January 16, 1647 [1648]); Ussher made the same point in Bodl. MS Eng. th.e.25, fol. 39v–​40r, 55v–​61v (two sermons on Hebrews 9:15, dated 1625 [1626]).

184  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works infinitely exacerbated. Whereas Adam was created with the natural strength needed to pay the initial debt of obedience, the debt of punishment for sin could not be settled apart from the suffering of the offender. “But beside this [first debt of obedience], we were lyable unto another debte; which we have incurred by our default, and drawen upon our selves by way of forfeicture and nomine poenae [by account of penalty].”77 Christ as the mediator of the evangelical covenant, however, rendered his passive obedience—​his suffering the curse of the law in total—​on behalf of those who believe in him. Whereas Anselm’s explanation of salvation ended here at the satisfaction of punishment, Ussher argued that active obedience still needed to be presented by the covenant head as a positive fulfillment of the law. Ussher wrote, “Therfore our surety, who standeth chargeable with all our debts, as he maketh payment for the one by his Active, so must he make amends for the other by his Passive obedience: he must first suffer, and then enter into his glory.”78 The covenant of works required completing an active task like this one, and so Christ, as the second Adam, did “satisfie the first Covenant whereunto man was tyed” because it still obligated “performing that righteousnesse which the Law of God did require of Man.”79 Christ had to keep the law because Adam had previously been obligated to keep the law. Hence Ussher’s Christology was in some ways grounded in the covenant of works. Ussher also linked Christ’s mediatorship to the evangelical covenant. The link between Christ’s mediation and covenant brought all of Christ’s work under the covenantal theme. The strongest example of this link is that Christ’s priesthood was covenantal and almost synonymous with his being mediator. Ussher argued as much in A Body of Divinitie: “What is his Priesthood? It is the first part of his mediation, whereby he worketh the means of salvation in the behalf of mankind, and so appeaseth and reconcileth God to his elect.”80 He treated the articles of Christ’s satisfaction and intercession under this heading of the mediating priesthood.81 This overarching covenantal umbrella has to be kept in mind for the more particular parts of Christ’s priesthood. All of Christ’s lawkeeping and satisfaction for sin were explicitly covenantal. Ussher continually linked the themes of satisfaction, righteousness, and priesthood back to Adam’s covenantal role. Righteousness was

77 Ussher, Immanuel, 30.

78 Ussher, Immanuel, 31.

79 Ussher, Principles (1653), 19–​20.

80 James Ussher, A Body of Divinitie (1645), 168. 81 Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 168–​76.

Christology  185 required of Christ because it was required of Adam. Satisfaction was necessary because Adam sinned. All these aspects were part of the covenant God had made with Adam. Ussher’s emphasis upon the covenant of works controlling the incarnation’s functional role is most clearly seen when his view is compared with other Reformed explanations of the incarnation. Even those Reformed thinkers who used covenant theology did not all have the marked accent on Christ’s recapitulation of Adam. For example, Mark Jones has shown that the covenant of redemption was the key component of Christology for Thomas Goodwin.82 The covenant of redemption, or pactum salutis, was a pre-​temporal agreement made between the persons of the Trinity concerning their roles in the salvation of the elect: “The Son covenants with the Father, in the unity of the Godhead, to be the temporal sponsor of the Father’s testamentum in and through the work of the Mediator. In that work, the Son fulfills his sponsio or fideiussio, i.e. his guarantee of payment of the debt of sin in ratification of the Father’s testamentum.”83 This doctrine, which David Dickson first named in 1638, came quickly into widespread use in the seventeenth century, and Goodwin used it to frame his Christology.84 Jones demonstrated that “Goodwin’s Christology, both in terms of Christ’s person and work, are essentially the outworking of, and contingent upon, the pactum salutis.”85 This covenant determined that Christ’s death would be a saving atonement and fixed the reward that would come to Christ once he completed his incarnate task.86 It is clear that Goodwin’s covenantal Christology leaned heavily on the specific formulation of the covenant of redemption. Goodwin’s formulation contrasts with—​not contradicts—​Ussher’s emphasis on the connection between Christ and Adam. Snoddy even indicated passages where Ussher started to use language suggestive of the pactum.87 Still, Ussher and Goodwin did have distinct emphases in how they taught the incarnation. Whereas Goodwin spoke much about the intratrinitarian, covenantal dynamic between the Father and the Son that defined Christ’s work, Ussher demonstrated the fulfillment of the Adamic task in Christ’s 82 Mark Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth: The Christology of Puritan Reformed Orthodox Theologian Thomas Goodwin (1600–​1680) (Göttingen: V&R, 2010), 123. 83 DLGTT, “pactum salutis,” 252–​53. 84 J. V. Fesko, The Covenant of Redemption: Origins, Development, and Reception (Göttingen: V&R, 2016), 29–​108. 85 Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth, 127; Fesko, Covenant of Redemption,  66–​68. 86 Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth, 133–​39. 87 Snoddy, Soteriology, 60.

186  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works work, thus connecting it to the covenant of works. Again, these views were not mutually exclusive, but they did take their starting points from different covenants. The starting point of the covenant of redemption emphasizes the divine origin of salvation and the unchangeable plan of the triune God that undergirds it. According to Ussher, though, the starting point of the covenant of works concentrates on the human condition that creates the need for salvation.88 This variation of expression between Ussher and Goodwin simply highlights how early modern Reformed theologians used diverse formulations to express the same doctrinal substance. There are additional factors that may explain how differing covenantal formulations for the incarnation developed in the seventeenth century. One explanation is simply chronological developments, as Fesko claimed that David Dickson, in 1638, was the first to use the term “covenant of redemption” to refer to the intratrinitarian agreement.89 This instance was well into Ussher’s career, and he likely did not hear the term until much later still, but Goodwin had far longer to appropriate the terminology and integrate it into his thought. Although this chronological explanation is straightforward, there are other factors that take precedence. Goodwin argued that Christ’s death was not absolutely necessary for God to forgive sin.90 In other words, God could have forgiven sin by a pure act of his will. This was not an uncommon view in the Reformed tradition, but it does reveal that its proponents held voluntarist presuppositions.91 Their notion that God could pardon sins by a sheer act of will emphasized (obviously) the priority of God’s will. As demonstrated throughout this study, however, Ussher leaned more intellectualist, prioritizing God’s character (rather than simply how God willed things to be) as determinative. This emphasis was clear in Ussher’s explanation of the stability of the natural law that was built into the creation. This natural law, which formed the basis of the covenant of works, also links to his construction of Christology. This connection between the covenant of works, natural law, and Christology reveals a substantial reason for Ussher and Goodwin’s differing formulations, perhaps indicating that they rest on differing philosophical

88 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 28r–​29r (sermon on Genesis 6:5, dated August 7, 1642). 89 Fesko, Covenant of Redemption,  30–​31. 90 Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth, 131–​34. 91 Carl R. Trueman, “John Owen’s Dissertation on Divine Justice: An Exercise in Christocentric Scholasticism,” CTJ 33 (1998): 87–​91.

Christology  187 assumptions.92 Goodwin’s voluntarist conception of the necessity of Christ’s death focuses on God’s decision to make that death contingently necessary to pardon sins. This would require the terms of Christ’s work to be defined by an agreement between the Father and Son simply because, in the voluntarist paradigm, all things had to be determined by acts of will. Ussher, however, had a strong position on natural law and Adam’s responsibility to fulfill that law to obtain protological justification.93 The natural law was grounded in God’s character, as the Thomist tradition generally taught, and this meant that God’s justice was at stake in the violation of the law. An infraction of natural law was an infraction of the eternal law (God’s character), and so it must be punished. In this intellectualist paradigm, Christ’s satisfaction may be contingent on God’s desire to save at all, but it was requisite to grant divine pardon.94 Ussher made this point clearly in a 1626 sermon on Christology where he asserted about the incarnation that the “sonne was free”: As soone as ever he was incarnate (if he had sought onelie his owne thinges) he might have satt at the right hand of his Father in glory without undergoing the heavie pilgrimage of 33 yeares w[hi]ch he did in this world, but he not minding his owne thinges would humble himself so as to bind himself to the law.95

92 Carl R. Trueman, “The Necessity of the Atonement,” in Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (eds.), Drawn into Controversie:  Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​ Century British Puritanism (Göttingen: V&R, 2011), 204–​22. 93 See Chapter 2. 94 Snoddy recorded two instances where Ussher implicitly used the distinction of God’s antecedent and consequent will to argue God could have freely and simply forgiven sins, which is a more voluntarist construction (Snoddy, Soteriology, 49–​51). In those passages cited, Ussher did acknowledge God’s absolute power to forgive sin by an act of will. Immediately after this acknowledgment, however, he qualified that God’s justice constrained him not to use this power. “But sinne is so hatefull to God that there must be visible Amends made” (CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 52v (sermon on Philippians 2:6, dated December 19, 1647)) and “God would not use His free Pardon; He would not Justifie a Sinner by bare forgiveness, but Christ must Pay a Price for It, His owne Pretious bloud: w[hi]ch shewes Both the love and Justice of God, And the uglines of Sinne . . . God would not put up By a bare forgivenes but hee must have satisfaction for the wrong that hee had from the hand of man: And this must bee By the Givinge of his Sonne to death: And by beinge Executioner of It himselfe. 2. Acts. 23” (CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 214r (sermon on Romans 4:25, dated March 30, 1651, Easter day)). Snoddy legitimately noted Ussher’s nod to the absolute and ordained power distinction, but Ussher immediately qualified it in light of God’s justice so as to mitigate its force. This likely exemplifies Ussher’s eclectic appropriation of prior tradition. Ussher did apply the priority of the intellect even to God: “There is a will in God: to will Is the fruite of understandinge:” (CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 213v (sermon on Ephesians 1:11, dated March 23, 1650 [1651])). There could simply be a tension or even an inconsistency in Ussher’s thought, but it seems his qualifications of how God would use his absolute power in light of God’s nature still tilt Ussher in the intellectualist direction. This study’s arguments about the links between Christ’s work and the Adamic task are unaffected by Snoddy’s point. 95 Bodl. MS Eng. th.e.25, fol. 4v (sermon on Hebrews 9:14, dated “New Yeares day” 1625 [1626]).

188  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Although Ussher couched his message in non-​technical terms suited for the occasion of preaching, this statement is a vivid description of how Christ’s satisfaction was not absolutely necessary, but was necessary for our sake. Even the incarnate Christ could have instantly returned to heavenly glory if he cared only for his own good, but his earthly obedience was necessary if he was to distribute good to humanity. Ussher elaborated this point about how Christ was free from any intrinsic need to render obedience to the Father: “Indeed our Savio[r]‌being the sonne might have beene a Generall in the Lords host, but from serving as a voluntarie Com[m]on Soule yet the dignitie of his p[er]son might have exempted him.”96 He argued that since Christ was a person of the Trinity, he had no need to render obedience to the Godhead for himself, as the “dignitie of his p[er]son” removed this obligation. Ussher saw complete equality between the persons of the Trinity, and the Son’s personhood was not characterized by eternal obedience or submission. He elsewhere explicitly made this point that the Son’s eternal equality with the Father meant he owed no obedience on his own account: “Our nature being received into the union of the Person of the Son of God; the sufferings and the obedience which it performed became of infinite value, as being the sufferings and the obedience of him who was God, equall with the Father.”97 Ussher seemingly took this point from the material he gathered for A Body of Divinitie: “Our Saviour must also perform obedience to the law, which in his Godhead he could not doe.”98 Christ’s freedom from any intrinsic obligation to render obedience meant that none of his righteousness was offered for his own account. Some early modern Reformed thinkers debated whether Christ offered his active obedience to the law as a way to qualify himself to be a perfect sacrifice or as a way to impute a record of completed righteousness to believers. For example, there was significant debate about this issue at the Westminster Assembly when Richard Vines affirmed that Christ’s passive obedience, or his enduring the curse of the law, was imputed to us, but questioned whether his active obedience, or positive lawkeeping, was credited to our record. Instead, he said, “those acts of obedience as pure” were because “the lambe must be without spot, but it is not that which makes it a sacrifice but bloud.”99 96 Bodl. MS Eng. th.e.25, fol. 5r (sermon on Hebrews 9:14, dated “New Yeares day” 1625 [1626]). 97 Ussher, Principles (1653), 86. 98 Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 164. 99 MPWA 2:53 (session 47, September 6, 1654); Jeffrey K. Jue, “The Active Obedience of Christ and the Theology of the Westminster Standards: A Historical Investigation,” in K. Scott Oliphint (ed.), Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2007), 99–​130.

Christology  189 He argued further, “We are justified by that by which we are redeemed, but this is not by his active obedience.”100 Theologians such as Vines held that Christ’s righteousness in fulfilling what the law demands was simply to qualify him to be the perfect sacrifice. This active obedience was to establish him as the spotless lamb. It was not rendered as the obedience necessary for a person to obtain justification. Chad Van Dixhoorn commented, “A medieval understanding of Christology and the atonement posited by theologians like Anselm of Canterbury was pitted against an early-​modern form of covenant theology that stressed the representative headships of an historic Adam and of Jesus Christ as the second Adam.”101 This assessment points to the differing appropriations of Anselm by the Reformed. Some, including Vines and Thomas Gataker (see Chapter 2), took Anselm’s straightforward position that Christ had to obey the law for himself so that he could be the perfect sacrifice. Other theologians, as we have seen with Ussher, developed the satisfaction theory of Anselm in new ways. The structure of Anselm’s satisfaction theory remained in place, but Ussher added the new dimensions of covenant theology to it so that Christ’s active obedience was meant to attain a fulfillment of all righteous requirements that can be imputed to believers. Ussher clearly argued that Christ’s obedience was tied entirely to our need for justification. He argued that a person in a human nature had to render perfect obedience to God and that suffering was required for the remission of sins: Not the essentiall righteousnesse of his divine nature, but, First, the absolute integrity of our humane nature, which in him our head was without guile. Heb. 7.6. Secondly, the perfect obedience which in that humane nature of ours was required of us, Mat. 3.15. and by suffering whatsoever was deserved by our sins, I Pet. 2.24. for he was made sin and a curse for us, that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him.102

Ussher tied Christ’s obedience entirely to the necessity for a person in a human nature to render obedience to the law that would earn justification and entitlement to heaven. This obedience was to be rendered to God by one



100

MPWA 2:61 (session 48, September 7, 1643). MPWA 2:59. 102 Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 194. 101

190  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works representative of the human race, and that representative was appointed according to the principles of God’s covenantal relationship to humankind. This is called a covenant because God commands certain conditions to every person. To be sure, a covenant of this sort is given to one person, as a mediator for the rest, and to a public person for the sake of himself and the rest of humanity according to the method of the Mediator and the others. There are two parts of the Covenant:  the Command and the Payment. A command is described according to its rationale, and it is either precept or prohibition. A precept, according to its method, is that those who would obey are justified and acquitted. A  prohibition, according to its method, is that those who are disobedient are condemned. The second part of the covenant is conditional, which concerns payment according to the method of the first part. It is, therefore, twofold. The first concerns the reward by which the payment of life is made to the righteous. And the second concerns the penalty by which the payment of death is made to the unrighteous.103

Ussher did not think the requirement of righteousness was arbitrary, but it had been built into every relationship between God and people. Human actions, according to the established principles of the covenant, warrant some recompense from God: Through the Covenant of Works, God promises eternal life to man by its condition, in order that he would supply complete and perfect obedience to his law according to the ability with which he was endowed by the nature of his creation. Likewise as well, he threatened death to them if they did not render it.104

103 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 35v (Foedus hic d[icitu]r, quod Deus omnibus hominibus certis conditionibus imperat. Ejusmodi vero foedus traditur uni homini ut caeteroru[m]‌mediatori et p[er]sonae com[m]uni pro seipse et caeteris hominibus pro ra[ti]one Mediatoris et aliorum. Foederis partes sunt Duae Mandatum [et] Retributio. Mandatu[m] est p[ro] cujus ratione indicantur estque vel praeceptum [vel] Interdictum. Praeceptu[m] pro cujus ra[ti]one qui paruerint iustificantur et absolvunt[u]r. Interdictum pro cujus ra[ti]one inobedientes condemnantur. Foederis pars [secun]da est conditionalis quae est de retributione pro ra[ti]one prioris partis: ita duplex est [prim]o praemii quae est qua fit iustis retributio vitae. et [secun]da poenae qua iniustis retribuitur retributio mortis). 104 TCD MS 287, fol. 102v (Per Foedus Operu[m]‌De[us] homini aeterna[m] vitam ea conditione prommittit ut integram et perfecta obedientia[m] legi eius praestet secundum facultate[m] illam, qua per creationis suae naturam p[rae]ditus erat. ac mortem similiter illi minatur si haec non p[rae]stiterit).

Christology  191 There is, therefore, no neutral position in which a person can remain. Either the human representative will actively obey the law and God will reward that righteousness with the reward of life for him and his posterity, or the human representative will disobey and God will repay it with condemnation and death for him and his posterity. This discussion should show that Ussher’s insistence that Christ’s active obedience was necessarily imputed to us for justification was integrally tied to his understanding of Christ as the second Adam. This Adamically fueled construction grounded Christ’s functional role in the covenant of works, as Christ was recapitulating and satisfying all the demands that were given to the first Adam in the Garden. In this construction, Christ’s representative role, the righteousness he rendered, and the reward he received were defined by the covenant of works. This comes full circle back to the contrast between Ussher’s covenantal Christology and Goodwin’s. Ussher’s intellectualist view grounded the work of Christ in the categories of nature and the things that had to be done to redeem people from the law’s curse.105 Goodwin’s more voluntarist view defaulted to an agreement between Father and Son to define not only the work Christ would perform but also the reward he would receive.106 Again, this does not mean their positions were in complete competition or at all incompatible, and philosophical categories were used eclectically, but it does demonstrate that different emphases arose when covenantal categories were implemented within differing philosophical apparatuses. This discussion of voluntarist and intellectualist starting points for covenant theology brings up the issue of Ussher’s hypothetical universalism. There was increasing discussion in the seventeenth century about the extent of Christ’s satisfaction, which addressed whether Christ intended to die for only the elect or in some sense for every person. This issue has received attention in the secondary literature, and so its full relevance and the various constructions of the intended efficacy of Christ’s death will not be discussed here.107 Instead, focus will remain tightly on Ussher’s view and how it tied to covenant theology.108 Ussher taught that although there was some universal

105 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 230v (sermon on Romans 5:12, dated October 19, 1651). 106 Beeke and Jones, Puritan Theology, 243–​49. 107 For a discussion of this issue set within the broader early modern Reformed tradition, see Richard A. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition:  On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 70–​160. 108 For an excellent, in-​depth exploration of Ussher’s hypothetical universalism, see Snoddy, Soteriology,  42–​92.

192  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works intent for his death, Christ applied the virtue of his satisfaction only to the elect in his intercession: In his Justice, His Satisfaction, And His Intercession. His Satisfaction Is Indefinite, tis not only Sufficient, but is proposed as a Comon Remedy to all men: 22 Revel. 17. Let whosoever will, take of the water of life, freely. Every Body is Invited: But Intercession is more restrayned: Intercession, for those whome God hath given him: 17. John. 24 Father, I will that They w[hi]ch thou hast given mee, be with mee, even where I am, that they may behold my Glory, w[hi]ch thou hast given mee. His Justice first satisfied: And His mercy Implored. God must finde a Ransome: A Propitiation. And this satisfaction must bee performed In a state of Humiliation:109

This passage shows Ussher’s understanding of how the universal value of Christ’s death connects to predestination. Christ’s universal satisfaction does not undermine his view of election because Christ intercedes for only the elect.110 Ussher wrote in this regard: Indeed Christ out Saviour saith, Jo[h]‌. 17.9. I pray not for the world, but for them that thou hast given me: but the consequence hereby inferred may well be excepted against, viz. He prayed not for the World, Therefore, He payd not for the World; Because the latter is an act of his satisfaction, the former of his Intercession: which being divers parts of his Priesthood, are distinguishable one from another by sundy differences.111

Ussher in fact reacted strongly against versions of hypothetical universalism that he thought were Arminian.112 He applied the value of Christ’s death to only the elect because Christ intercedes for only the elect.113 109 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 53r (sermon on Philippians 2:8, dated January 9, 1647 [1648]). 110 The evidence in Chapter 4 indicates Richard Baxter was certainly incorrect to correlate Ussher’s view with the Amyraldian view. Richard Baxter, Certain Disputations of Right to Sacraments and the True Nature of Visible Christianity (1657), preface sig. c1v–​c2v. Jonathan Moore supported Baxter’s correlation of Ussher and Amyraldianism, but this must be corrected; Jonathan D. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism:  John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007). For a better assessment of the nuanced versions of hypothetical universalism, see Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition, 126–​60; Muller, review of Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, CTJ 43, no. 1 (April 2008):  149–​50; W. Robert Godfrey, “Reformed Thought on the Extent of the Atonement to 1618,” WTJ 37, no. 2 (Winter 1975):  133–​71. Snoddy effectively undermined Moore’s case that Ussher was a theological innovator; Snoddy, Soteriology,  61–​81. 111 Correspondence of James Ussher, 1:142 (letter to Ezekiel Culverwell, dated March 3, 1618). 112 Snoddy, Soteriology, 58, 75–​76. 113 Snoddy, Soteriology, 55–​60, esp. 56 n. 77.

Christology  193 Ussher’s emphasis on the limited scope of Christ’s intercession differed from the approach of John Davenant, another hypothetical universalist, who did not stress the same dissimilarity between the scope of Christ’s satisfaction and intercession:114 We do not, consequently, separate things which God has united, but we teach that the death, resurrection, and intercession of Christ have been united with an indestructible attachment [to one another], but in different ways. If we consider the universal human race, that is every and individual person, then we say not only Christ’s death, but his resurrection and intercession had in view the universal human race with respect to the possibility of enjoying these benefits, by the condition of faith. If we consider the elect, we affirm that all these things have them in view with respect to the infallibility of enjoying them because this condition of faith has been certainly determined and in time will be given to them.115

This quote clearly stated his view that Christ’s intercession had “the universal human race” in view, even if only the elect actually enjoy it. There were times that Davenant wrote about Christ’s intercession as being for the elect, but he was not explicit that this intercession was more limited in scope than Christ’s satisfaction. Davenant wrote, “Consequently, Christ is said to turn grace towards his own, either by the efficacy of operation, or the benefit of intercession, or the merit of passion. As he is the church’s Head, it is proper to his office effectually to vivify his members, and to communicate grace, namely spiritual life and motion to them. As he is a Priest, he prays and solicits for this grace.”116 Davenant did say Christ intercedes effectually for the elect, but he did not deny 114 Jonathan D. Moore, “The Extent of the Atonement: English Hypothetical Universalism Versus Particular Redemption,” in Drawn into Controversie, 137; Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 193–​94; Snoddy, Soteriology, 58–​59,  86–​87. 115 John Davenant, Dissertationes duae: prima de morte Christi . . . altera de praedestinatione & reprobatione (Cambridge, 1650), 24 (Non itaque ea divellimus quae Deus conjunxit, sed mortem, resurrectionem & intercessionem Christi nexu indissolubili conjunctas docemus, at diversimodé. Si spectemus humanum genus universum, hoc est, omnes & singulos homines, tum dicimus non modó mortem sed resurrectionem & intercessionem Christi ad illos spectare quoad possibilitatem fruendi hisce beneficiis, praesuppositâ fidei conditione: Si spectemus electos, affirmamus haec omnia ad eos spectare quoad infallibilitatem fruendi, ex destinata scilicet, & in tempore illis donanda hac fidei conditione). The autograph of this work is in Bodl. Rawlinson MS C. 579, but unfortunately it began at what is page 50 in the edition cited here. 116 John Davenant, Expositio Epistolae D. Pauli Ad Colossenses (Cambridge, 1639), 13 (Christus igitur gratiam ad suos derivare dicitur, vel efficacia operationis, vel beneficio intercessionis, vel merito passionis. Ut est Caput ecclesiae, proprium est illius munus efficaciter vivificare membra sua, & gratiam, id est, vitam ac motum spiritualem illis communicare. Ut est Sacerdos, orat & interpellat pro hac gratia).

194  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works a wider hypothetical and ineffectual intercession.117 He came closer to denying that when he wrote, “Christ’s intercession actually belongs only to those who are incorporated into Christ,” but this remark still left open the possibility that Christ’s intercession belongs hypothetically—​contrasted to “actually”—​to the non-​elect.118 Given that the first quote from Davenant was in his last writing, published after his death, it seems reasonable that he always meant the universal scope of Christ’s intercession mentioned there, even if qualifying that it is hypothetical and that the elect alone actually receive the benefit of this intercession. Although there may not have been much substantial difference between Ussher and Davenant specifically on the extent of Christ’s satisfaction, Ussher was distinct from Davenant in that he explicitly emphasized that Christ’s intercession was not universal even in a hypothetical sense. He wrote, “I agree therefore thus far with Mr. [William] Ames in his dispute against [Nicolaas] Grevinchovius, That Application and Impetration, in this matter we have in hand, are of equal extent; and, That forgiveness of sins is not by our Saviour impetrated for any unto whom the merit of his death is not applied in particular.”119 As Ussher agreeably mentioned in his letter, Ames recorded his response to Grevinchoven (1570–​1632), a Remonstrant preacher in Rotterdam The first edition was printed in 1627, but Davenant was still alive in 1639, which makes this printing the last he would have been able to oversee. 117 For a treatment of how early modern theologians would express theological formulations very precisely in regards to affirming or explicitly denying hypothetical aspects of Christ’s work, see Moore, “The Extent of the Atonement,” 143–​52. 118 Davenant, Colossenses, 16 (intercessionis Christi actu pertinere tantum ad illos qui sunt insiti in Christum). 119 Correspondence of James Ussher, 1:143–​44 (letter to unknown, concerning the letter dated March 3, 1618)  (italics original). The debate between Nicolaas Grevinchoven and William Ames, which Ussher mentioned in the quotation from letter, concerned the extent of Christ’s satisfaction and the grounds of God’s election. Ames began the printed debate in 1613 with the publication of De Arminii Sententia, which summarized Arminius’ view of God’s decree and outlined Ames’ dispute with Grevinchoven, who published his own account in 1615 as Dissertatio Theologica. Ames critiqued Gravinchoven later in 1615 with his Rescriptio Scholastica & brevis Ad Nic[olaas] Grevinchovii Responsum illud prolixum. In regards to the discussion in the present chapter, Ames argued that God intended Christ’s death to forgive only the sins of the elect, whereas Grevinchoven argued for a purely universal satisfaction. Ames also disagreed with Grevinchoven about predestination because the latter argued that foreseen faith is a ground of God’s election, but that topic is less directly relevant to the discussion about which Ussher referred to this debate. William Ames, De Arminii sententia, qua electionem omnem particularem fidei praevisae docet inniti, disceptatio scholastica inter Nicolaum Grevinchovium . . . et Guilielmum Amesium (Amsterdam, 1613); Nicolaas Grevinchoven, Disseratio Theologica de Duabus Quaestionibus Hoc Tempore Controversis, Quarum Prima Est de Conciliatione per Mortem Christi Impetrata Omnibus ac Singulis Hominibus (Rotterdam, 1615); William Ames, Rescriptio Scholastica & brevis Ad Nic[olai] Grevinchovii Responsum illud prolixum, quod opposuit Diissertationi de Redemptione generali, & Electione ex fide praevisa (Amsterdam, 1615); Keith L. Sprunger, The Learned Doctor William Ames: Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism (London: University of Illinois Press, 1972), 45–​49; Anthony Milton (ed.), The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–​ 1619) (Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 2005), xxxiv, 62–​63, 108, 147 n. 2, 184; Henri A. Krop,

Christology  195 who played a major role in the Arminian controversy before and during the Synod of Dort, and said, “Concerning your distinction between the intention for what must be impetrated and for what must be applied, I oppose it with two things. First, application is the end of impetration, and precisely must not be divided in intention.”120 He later wrote in his next response to Grevinchoven that “redemption cannot, therefore, have been impetrated for anyone to whom it is not also to be applied.”121 Explicitly following Ames, who was not a hypothetical universalist, Ussher distinguished the differences between satisfaction and intercession, saying, “But intercession is the Application of it [satisfaction]. Intercession is not of that large extent, as the Passion.”122 In this way, Ussher apparently said little more than the old maxim that Christ’s death was sufficient for all but efficient for the elect, which is not surprising since Ussher was constantly trying to build bridges between Protestant theological formulation and Christian antiquity.123 Ussher’s clear limitation of Christ’s intercession and application to only the elect differed from the way that Davenant allowed for a type of application of Christ’s death to the non-​elect. Davenant wrote: Christ’s death is, therefore, understood to have been destined and to have been applied differently to the elect because of the special intention of God the Father, who ordained this sacrifice unto the salvation of men, and of Christ, who offered himself and conformed to the Father’s will. God decreed to save the elect infallibly on account of this death differently from how it applies to others, whom God permits, not withstanding this death, to be destroyed through their own fault.124 “Philosophy and the Synod of Dort. Aristotelianism, Humanism, and the Case Against Arminianism,” in Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (eds.), Revisiting the Synod of Dort (1618–​1619) (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 71–​79; Michael J. Lynch, “John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy,” PhD diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 175–​77. 120 Ames, De Aminii Sententia, 5–​6 (Distinctioni tuae inter intentionem impetrandi & applicandi, opposui ego duo; primo, applicationem esse finem impetrationis, atque adeo non debere in intentione disjungi). 121 Ames, Rescriptio Scholastica, 6 (non potuit igitur impetrata redemptio non aliquibus etiam applicari). 122 CUL MS Mm. 6.55, fol. 60r (sermon on Romans 8:34, dated February 20, 1647); Lynch, “John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism,” 138–​42. 123 Cf. Davenant, Dissertationes Duae,  37–​40. 124 Davenant, Dissertation Duae, 95 (emphasis added) (Mors igitur Christi ex speciali intentione Dei Patris illud sacrificium ad salute hominum ordinantis, & Christi seipsum offerentis ac Paternae voluntati conformantis, aliter electis destinata & applicata intelligitur, quos Deus decrevit per hanc mortem infallibiliter servare, aliter caeteris, quos Deus non obstante hac morte permittit suo vitio perire).

196  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Davenant certainly affirmed that God had a special intent for Christ’s death to apply to the elect, as all Reformed theologians did, but also stated that this death applied differently to the non-​elect, which is a point that Ussher denied. Davenant also carried this different application of Christ’s death into a different sense of intercession when he, acknowledging first Christ’s particular prayer for the elect, wrote, “That already said, I will add that, in the same way that Christ specially prayed for the special benefits to be conferred to the elect, so also he specially offered himself in order to merit those same benefits.”125 Obviously, Davenant meant that Christ’s special offering of himself for the elect contrasted with the way the sense in which he offered himself for all humanity. That special sense for the elect, however, had a corresponding special sense in which Christ prayed—​interceded—​for the elect, which does entail another sense in which Christ interceded for the rest of humanity. He confirmed this understanding later in that same paragraph: Therefore, the prayer which Christ specially and effectually prayed for the elect had a foundation in the oblation, wherein he specially and effectually offered himself for the same elect. Watch the argument’s strength: Whatever Christ impetrates for individual persons on account of his special intercession, he merited that same thing for them in the Father’s presence through his self-​offering that specially pertained to them.126

According to Davenant, Christ’s oblation had a universal application in one sense, and this oblation was the foundation for the special and effectual prayer that Christ made. Further, Christ impetrates some things by a special intercession on the basis of his self-​sacrifice that had special reference to the elect, but that does not exclude and seems to entail another sense of Christ’s intercession, in addition to that special sense, that corresponds to the universal sense of Christ’s satisfaction. Ussher, on the other hand, omitted any special sense of Christ’s intercessory work because he saw intercession and impetration as strictly limited to the elect without any sense of qualification. Ussher’s difference from Davenant regarding this point about Christ’s 125 Davenant, Dissertation Duae, 95 (Jam hoc posito, illud addam, Sicuti Christus specialiter oravit pro specialibus beneficiis in electos conferendis, ita specialiter seipsum obtulit pro eisdem beneficiis promerendis). 126 Davenant, Dissertation Duae, 95 (Oratio igitur, qua Christus specialiter and efficaciter oravit pro electis, fundamentum habuit in oblatione, qua pro eisdem specialiter & efficaciter sese obulit. Videtis vim argumenti:  Quicquid Christus impetrat singularibus personis per specialem intercessionem, id promeruit iisdem apud Patrem per oblationem suiipsius ad eos specialiter pertinentem).

Christology  197 intercession may have been what he had in mind when he mentioned that those who fought against semi-​Pelagianism “may disagree somewhat in some incidental and circumstantial matters” when he sent a manuscript of Davenant’s work to Friedrich Spanheim, who taught at the University of Leiden.127 Ussher’s view had potential links to the issue of intellectualism and voluntarism in the way that each philosophical apparatus would facilitate varying views on the extent of Christ’s satisfaction. The voluntarist view would naturally emphasize God’s choice even in the extent of the atonement, whereas the intellectualist view would be more inclined to ground the extent of the atonement in factors as they stand. Plenty who held the intellectualist viewpoint still held to a definite view of Christ’s satisfaction wherein he died only for the elect; this simply shows that philosophical categories were eclectically appropriated and subordinate to other considerations. It may be true that certain doctrinal positions may be expected given a particular philosophical apparatus, but the fact that theologians who held contrasting philosophical apparatuses could hold the same doctrinal position undermines Jonathan Moore’s apparent argument about a direct link between hypothetical universalism and voluntarism, as the running argument about Ussher’s intellectualism should already have made clear.128 Ussher’s intellectualist presuppositions pushed him to view Christ’s representative death as tied more to the general human race.129 After all, Adam had represented the entire human race and Christ was the second Adam.130 As Ussher wrote in some of his earliest comments on this issue: As also against the latter extremity, that all men may be truly said to have interest in the merits of Christ, as in a Comon, though all do enjoy the benefit thereof; because they have no will to take it.131

And: So, in one respect he may be said to have died for all, and in another respect not to have died for all; yet so as in respect of his mercy he may be counted 127 Correspondence of James Ussher, 3:904 (letter to Friedrich Spanheim, dated July 19, 1647). 128 Moore, “The Extent of the Atonement,” 140–​41. 129 Snoddy, Soteriology,  57–​59. 130 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 52v (sermon on Philippians 2:6, dated December 19, 1647), 230v (sermon on Romans 5:12, dated October 19, 1651). 131 Correspondence of James Ussher, 1:140 (letter to Ezekiel Culverwell, dated March 3, 1618). Culverwell likely drew Ussher into the debate; Snoddy, Soteriology,  52–​53.

198  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works a kind of universal cause of restoring of our Nature, as Adam was of the depraving of it.132

This view of Christ’s satisfaction put a stronger emphasis on natural connections, specifically in regard to Adam’s federal representation. Interestingly, he explicitly cited Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Contra Gentiles to prove this point:133 The death of Christ is as a certain universal cause of salvation; just as the sin of the first man was as a universal cause of damnation. But a universal cause ought to be applied specially to each person, so that he may participate in the effect of the universal cause. The effect, therefore, of the sin of the first parent reaches everyone through the spiritual regeneration through which man is joined and incorporated in some way with Christ.134

He later explicitly connected the universal dimension of Christ’s representation to nature: This is founded in nature: All Humane nature was rooted in Adam. . . . As Adam stood for a Publiq[ue] Person In this Sinne, for that was It, made It our Sinn: for All the Sinnes that Adam com[m]‌itted after, was nothinge to us: He was In other Sinnes like Another man.135

Ussher’s particular formulation, however, did not undermine his strong view of predestination because he explained that Christ only pleaded his satisfaction on behalf of the elect:136 The first contains the preparation of the remedy necessary for man’s salvation; the second brings with it an Application of the same, And consequently the one may well appertain to the common nature which the Son

132 Correspondence of James Ussher, 1:142 (letter to Ezekiel Culverwell, dated March 3, 1618) (italics original). 133 Snoddy rightly noted one way that Ussher disagreed from Aquinas; Snoddy, Soteriology, 47–​49. The present study has argued not that Ussher followed Thomas exactly in doctrinal formulations but that he adopted and modified aspects of Thomas’ thought. 134 Correspondence of James Ussher, 1:143 n. 1. 135 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 230v (sermon on Romans 5:12, dated October 19, 1651). 136 Snoddy, Soteriology, 81–​90, 56–​60,  75–​76.

Christology  199 assumed, when the other is a special Priviledge vouchsafed to such particular persons only, as the father hath given him.137

He was emphatic that there was a sense wherein Christ died specially for the elect.138 He rejected the notion that the universal aspect of Christ’s satisfaction granted the prevenient grace of a restored free will to every person. The fallen will was actually a primary impediment that blocked the reprobate from receiving Christ’s benefits.139 Ussher even used covenantal categories to explain the two-​layer distinction between procuring satisfaction and applying it to the elect: Two things are required for this reconciliation. First, that Christ satisfies the covenant of works for the sake of the rest. Second, that he then communicates this satisfaction with the elect. The satisfaction of the law requires, first, the payment of the price that was owed because the human race violated the covenant that Christ paid through that ministry of humiliation, wherein he who was equal with God made himself of no estimation and became obedient even unto death, enduring the curse owed because of the transgression of the law equally in body and soul. Second, the satisfaction of the law requires the rendering of new righteousness that must be acquired for us, both original righteousness in that it is received from the Holy Spirit in all purity and sanctity of nature, and also actual righteousness in that perfect obedience to every precept of God’s law is rendered through the entire course of his life. This satisfaction of Christ, however, is communicated to the elect through that remarkable union in which Christ is united with the Church precisely so that each of the elect are engrafted into him and likewise grow up with him into one mystical body, of which Christ himself is head. The bond of this union is communion with the Spirit of God, which has flowed from the man Christ Jesus to every member of the elect, so to say it supplies spiritual life from the head to those members and it makes them partakers of Christ and his benefits. And this satisfaction with respect to the position of Christ the mediator is that he stands for the rest of the human race not only in the Gospel blessings having even been 137 Correspondence of James Ussher, 1:142 (letter to Ezekiel Culverwell, dated March 3, 1618) (italics original). Snoddy argued Ussher could have taken this medicinal metaphor from Richard Hooker; Snoddy, Soteriology,  67–​75. 138 Correspondence of James Ussher, 1:145 (letter to unknown); CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 53r (sermon on Philippians 2:8, dated January 9, 1647 [1648]). 139 Correspondence of James Ussher, 1:146 (letter to unknown).

200  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works offered to all, however, being communicated only to the elect, but also in the external means by which the benefits are offered and communicated.140

This passage shows how the covenant of works determined the nature of Christ’s representation, but then God’s election, which results in some being historically united to Christ by faith, determines who will actually receive the benefits of Christ’s mediation. This relationship between covenant theology and Ussher’s view of Christ’s satisfaction has not yet been fully appreciated. Snoddy briefly noted some intersection between these doctrines, but he was interested primarily in the historical development of Ussher’s ideas over his career rather than the covenantal apparatus of those ideas.141 Snoddy should not be faulted since covenant theology was outside his scope, but there is still this gap in the literature. Moore pointed to the relationship between covenant theology and the extent of Christ’s satisfaction, but he was mistaken in his analysis. He claimed that “covenant formulations” were “not mentioned in this context by Ussher,” but the evidence in this chapter thus far shows that Moore’s claim that Ussher lacked covenantal structures is flatly false.142 This entire section demonstrates Ussher’s links between covenant theology, Christ’s role as mediator, and even Christ’s satisfaction. Moore further claimed that although Ussher lacked covenantal motifs in conjunction with Christ’s satisfaction, Davenant developed a two-​stage covenant theology with a first universal stage, under the label of “evangelical covenant,” “to furnish a new covenantal relationship between God and all men without exception” and a second “unconditional” stage that “actually saves the elect.”143 Moore described the first stage of Davenant’s 140 TCD MS 287, fol. 103r (Ad hanc reconciliationem requiruntur duo; primu[m]‌ut is in nomine reliquoru[m] satisfaciat foederi operu[m]; secundo ut hanc satisfactione[m] cu[m] electis communicet tu[m]. Ad legis satisfactione[m] requiruntur primò Persolutio pretii, quod ob foedus ab humano genere violatu[m] debebatur h[a]nc persolvit Christus per ministram illa[m] humiliationem, qua is qui cu[m] deo aequalis erat, seipsu[m] nullius aestimationis effecit, et obediens factus e[st] ad mortem in anima pariter et corpore sustinens execrationem ob transgessa[m] legem debitam. Secundò Praestitutio novae Rectitudinis nobis acquirendae, et originalis, du[m] ā spiritu sanćto in omni puritate et sanctitate naturae conciperetur: et Actualis, du[m] perfecta[m] obedientiam per integru[m] vitae suae cursu[m] omnibus pr[ae]ceptis legis Dei pr[ae]staret. Haec a[utem] Christi satisfactio com[m]unicatur electis per admirabile[m] illam unionem, quâ Christus cu[m] Eććlesia unitur: adeó ut omnes electi in ipsu[m] inserti, ac simul cum illo in unu[m] corp[us] mysticu[m] cresćunt, cuj[us] caput e[st] ipse Christ[us]. Cuj[us] unionis vinculu[m] est Spiritus Dei com[m]unio, quaê ab homine Christo Jesu derivata omnibus electoru[m] membris, tanq[uam] ā capite membris illis vitam spirituale[m] praebet, et illi Christi, ac beneficio cu[m] eius participes facit. Atq[ue] haec de conditione Christi mediatoris; reliqui generis humani consistit cu[m] in Evangelii beneficiis. oblatis quidem omnibus, sed electis solis com[m]unicatis; tu[m] et in externis mediis quibus ea offeruntur et com[m]unicantur). 141 Snoddy, Soteriology, 59–​60,  73–​77. 142 Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 202. 143 Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 202, 205.

Christology  201 covenant theology as “conditional,” “highly contractual,” and “legalizing,” the last meaning that Davenant drew upon the direct formulations of the covenant of works to articulate his understanding of the gospel.144 It should be obvious from all the preceding material in this book that Moore’s description of Davenant’s covenant theology has no correlation with Ussher’s view. Chapters 2 and 3 argue extensively that Ussher constructed the covenant of works as a paradigm to prevent any overlap between works and grace for obtaining the justified status, and Chapter 6 will clarify how Ussher applied that directly to soteriology. Snoddy noted examples where Ussher did speak of a conditional and absolute covenant in relation to Christ’s satisfaction and had possibly adopted this from Davenant.145 In reality, however, Ussher spoke of the covenant of works as the conditional covenant. The “second covenant” has the condition of faith, but within this covenant there is the “Absolute Promise” to bring the elect to faith. There is an outward appearance of conditionality to the covenant of grace grounded in Christ’s universal satisfaction, but it is still the covenant that will absolutely save the elect. In every case, Ussher cited the new covenant from Jeremiah 31 to prove the guarantee of faith. It is worth citing these passages in full: I have declared unto you The Covenant of nature, And the Event of that Covenant: upon the non Performance comes death: the Event of the First Covenant was Sinne, and Death. But there is a difference Betweene the First and the Second Covenant: The first Covenant was conditional, If thou doe This thou shalt live: If thou do it not, Thou shalt dye: But the Second Covenant, though it bee Conditional, If thou Beleeve thou shalt be saved; If thou doe not Beleeve, thou shalt be damned, And this is true for all mankind: yet: least the Second Covenant should bee as uneffectual as the First, there is an Absolute Covenant In the second to Some; w[hi]ch sayes I will write my Law in their hearts: that’s no Condition, but An Absolute Promise. . . .146 The First Covenant was only Conditional, nothinge absolute in It, Doe this, and thou shalt live: The Second Covenant is Conditional too: If thou Judas will renounce thyselfe and cleave unto God, thou shalt be saved. The difference is this: the Power is Equal as well In one as the other: wee are Dead in



144 Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism,  203–​4. 145 Snoddy, Soteriology, 59–​60,  76–​77. 146

CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 230v (sermon on Romans 5:12, dated October 19, 1651).

202  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Sinn, and have no natural Ability: In the Second Covenant there is something Absolute and Particular: 31 Jerem. 33.147 1. Whosoever believes in Christ shalbee saved. 2. But if Peter, James, & John, or anie particular man will believe, then shall they have life & Salvation. And this is the General Covenant, setting open a doore of hope unto all: yea of assurance, if they will believe & receive Christ. Before this Conditionall Covenant, there is an Absolute made by Christ by which hee merits Grace for a certaine companie, who are elected unto whom, in time grace & Power is given to believe in Christ & receive him: As Jer. 31.33.148

As Snoddy well explained, Ussher’s view was that works “play no part in justification but are the stuff of sanctification.”149 Ussher, although he spoke of a condition in the covenant of grace, was clear that its condition was faith, which is starkly different from the condition of obedience in the covenant of works. It may be, however, that Moore’s description of Davenant’s views, particularly as a “legalized” covenant of grace, may not accurately apply to Davenant himself either, and Micael Lynch has already challenged Moore’s reading of Davenant’s covenant theology, which calls for further reflection on the issue.150 Davenant did make some less-​than-​clear statements that could be read as Moore understood them, but some of Davenant’s clearer assertions undermine Moore’s claim that the theologian’s understanding of the covenant of grace is legally conditioned. Davenant argued: For as far as the good works that are commanded in the law are necessarily required from those who have been justified as fruits of sanctification and services of gratitude, nevertheless if anyone examines them as causes of justification, then he rid himself of Christ and faith.151

147 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 47r (sermon on Revelation 22:17, dated November 7, 1647). 148 Baliol College, Oxford MS 259, I, fol. 66r (sermon on 2 Corinthians 5:19). Snoddy dated these sermons to James I’s lifetime and I have no reason to disagree, although they are undated. 149 Snoddy, Soteriology, 160. 150 Lynch, “John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism,” 231–​54. 151 John Davenant, Praelectiones de Duobus in Theologia Controversis Capitibus (Cambridge, 1631), 394 (Nam utcunque opera bona, quae sunt mandata in lege, requirantur necessario a justificatis, ut fructus sanctificationis, & officia gratitudinis:  tamen si quis ea exigat ut causas justificationis, Christum ac fidem evacuat).

Christology  203 Throughout the chapter on the necessity of works in his treatise on justification, despite some isolated unclear statements, Davenant affirmed that the “works” necessary before justification were faith and repentance, and that works that accord with the law follow as evidence of justification. Even when Moore pointed that the conditional layer of Davenant’s evangelical covenant was universal for all humankind, “but nevertheless faith still is annexed as a ‘condition of works,’ ” it does not appear that Davenant meant that works are required to achieve or maintain justification. Instead, he seems to have been speaking of a “condition” as a subsequent condition, and used the term improperly.152 Davenant’s full argument was: Justification and the right to eternal life, therefore, is suspended upon the condition of faith alone. But good works are furthermore required from men who have already been justified, not for establishing the state of justification, or for deserving eternal life, but for displaying obedience, and for testifying gratitude towards God, who has freely justified us, and for walking in that way which he has delineated for those whom he has designated to the kingdom of glory. It is, therefore, worthy of diligent observation, that good works are required then from those who are living under the evangelical covenant, but in different respects and in wide distinction. The law, because it concerns man as created by God in the integrity of nature, requires good works to be done in the strength of nature. The gospel though, because it concerns man as fallen, requires good works from those who have been justified, but to be done not by the strength of free will, but of infused grace. The law, because the merit of death and of life depend on the condition of works, afflicts death because of any one, even trivial, sin, and the law does not crown with the reward of life except he who renders absolute obedience in every aspect. On the other hand, the gospel, because it deals with those who have been justified, namely those who are free from death through faith in Christ and freely appointed to life, grants an advocate to sinners, by whose intercession they obtain the constant remission of sins, and it also promises reward for the good works of those who have been renewed, even though those works are imperfect, because in Christ those works are accepted by God the Father in Christ the mediator. Finally, the law situates the struck covenant’s force and form in the condition of works,



152 Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism,  203–​4.

204  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works and the gospel in the Mediator’s blood, apprehended by faith, but ties on the condition of works, as subservient to this evangelical covenant, not as securing or constituting the covenant itself.153

Davenant clearly distinguished the law and the gospel according to covenantal premises, which Chapter 2 showed was one of Ussher’s fundamental concerns, and other passages corroborate this point.154 Davenant wrote, “He adorns the gospel by its specific doctrine whereby it is distinguished from the law. For the law declares God’s will imperatively, and imposes its command upon us, but the gospel displays God’s will savingly, and offers grace in Christ to us. These are not, therefore, to be confounded by anyone who would not want to obscure the gospel.”155 In the long quote, the most jarring phrase is “ties on the condition of works” in the covenant of grace—​a phrase Ussher seemed not to use—​but Davenant explained that he meant that works “are tied to this covenant as services that are to be rendered by those who have been justified and saved.”156 Although Davenant at times formulated ideas in ways that had no resonance in Ussher’s works, his overarching point seemed to be that justified people must obey God.

153 Davenant, Praelectiones, 396 (Justificatio igitur & jus ad aeternam vitam ex vitam conditione solius fidei suspenditur. Sed ab hominibus jam justificatis opera etiam bona exiguntur, non ad constituendum statum justificationis, aut promerendam vitam aeternam:  sed ad exhibendam obedientiam, & testificandam gratitudinem erga Deum, qui nos gratuito justificavit, atque ad ambulandum in illa via quam ad regnum gloriae designates ipse delineavit. Est itaque dignum diligenti observatione, quod bona opera exiguntur tum ab illis qui sunt sub pacto legali, tum ab illis qui vivunt sub foedere evangelico: sed diverso respectu, & lato discrimine. Lex, quia respicit hominem ut a Deo conditum in integritate naturae, bona opera exigit facienda viribus naturae: at evangelium, quia respicit hominem lapsum, exigit bona opera a justificatis, sed facienda non viribus liberi arbitrii, sed infusae gratiae. Lex quia meritum mortis & vitae suspendit ex conditione operum, ob quodlibet unum vel levissimum peccatum morte afficit:  & praemio vitae non coronat nisi eum qui omnibus numeris absolutam obedientiam praestiterit: evangelium vero, quia agit cum justificatis, qui liberate sunt a morte per fidem in Christo, & ad vitam gratuito designate, advocatum concedit peccantibus, cujus intercession obtineant assiduam peccatorum remissionem; atque praemium etiam promittit operibus bonis renatorum, quantumvis imperfectis, quia in Christo meditore habent apud Deum Patrem acceptationem. Postremo, lex in conditione operum sitam habet ipsam vim & formam icti foederis: at evangelium in Mediatoris sanguine fide apprehenso collocat ipsam vim & formam foederis; operum autem conditionem annectit, ut subservientem huic foederi evangelico, non ut continentem aut constituentem ipsum foedus). 154 Davenant, Colossenses, 26, 49. Thanks to Michael Lynch for alerting me to these passages and that cited in the next footnote. 155 Davenant, Colossenses, 41 (Evangelium ornat a doctrina ejus propria qua distinguitur a lege. Lex enim voluntatem Dei imperantem declarant, & nobis mandata imponit; evangleium voluntatem Dei salvantem ostendit, & nobis gratiam in Christo offert. Non sunt itaque haec illis confundenda, qui nolunt evangelium obscurare). 156 Davenant, Praelectiones, 396 (tamen annectuntur huic foederi, ut officia a justificatis & salvandis ex Dei ordinatione propter multas alias causas praestanda).

Christology  205 Even with some terminological similarity to Davenant’s evangelical covenant, with an absolute covenant within it that actually saves the elect, Ussher’s construction was more reserved and identified two aspects of the covenant of grace: the external offer that all who believe will be saved and the absolute guarantee that Christ will save his elect.157 This reading agrees with Snoddy that Ussher used covenants to avoid the decretal speculation of Richard Hooker and John Overall, but further extends that avoidance to Davenant as well.158 Ussher’s particular use of this construction was not directly tied to his hypothetical universalism, as particularist John Downame apparently used a nearly identical version.159 Ussher framed Christ’s satisfaction in terms of debts owed because of the covenant of works, and used Christ’s role of fulfilling Adam’s task to make the covenant of works the basis of the covenant of grace. Davenant created an “absolute new covenant” that came logically after the evangelical covenant in order to maintain God’s intent to save only the elect.160 Ussher’s model was more straightforward than Davenant’s, using a sophisticated understanding of the paradigmatic role of the covenant of works for Christology. Davenant’s explanation of the two-​layered evangelical covenant was more complex. The instances where Ussher adopted an apparent version of this language were passing and did not feature prominently in his theology. Although Ussher’s hypothetical universalism may have been controversial to some, his formulation was a clear blend of an integrated understanding of the covenant of works and a strong doctrine of election that supported his insistence on the distinction between satisfaction and intercession. Ussher’s view, therefore, was an integrated yet plain model of covenant theology applied to Christology.

Puritan and Anglican Christology? As our understanding of the early modern period has increased, it has become clear that various religious groups cannot be as compartmentalized or mutually exclusive as once thought. Whereas puritan, Reformed, and Presbyterian were once tightly grouped together in contrast to liturgical 157 Cf. John Davenant, Animadversions upon a Treatise Intitled, Gods Love to Mankind (Cambridge, 1641), 257–​58, 318, 330–​31. 158 Snoddy, Soteriology, 239. 159 Richard A. Muller, “Covenant and Conscience in English Reformed Theology: Three Variations on a 17th Century Theme,” WTJ 42, no. 2 (Spring 1980): 314–​16. 160 Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism,  205–​6.

206  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works “Anglicanism,” significant evidence now shows that there was a lot of overlap and interchange between the members of these divisions. Ussher is an obvious example of the intersection of episcopal polity and Reformed theology. In addition to his continued advocacy for use of bishops, he also supported using the Book of Common Prayer.161 Oliver Cromwell suspended the ban on the Book of Common Prayer so that its liturgy could be used in Ussher’s funeral, but Ussher’s theology, as previous chapters establish, was still more aligned with those labeled “puritans” than with the Laudian party. This theological positioning further deconstructs a strict categorical division between puritans and Anglicans. One area where this recalibration needs to be applied is on the issue of Christology. Horton Davies claimed that Anglican worship meditated on the mystery of the incarnation, whereas puritans treated it as an issue for doctrinal explanation.162 He thought that reflection on Christ’s incarnate life epitomized Anglican style but that puritans relegated it to another doctrine. Ussher, however, disproves this dichotomy. In a 1626 New Year’s sermon on the event of Christ’s circumcision, he preached at length about the relevance of the newness that Christ brought to Christians.163 His emphasis was on an aspect of Christ’s incarnate life, his circumcision, but Ussher dovetailed the theme of Christ undertaking the law on our behalf into this meditative sermon:  “For Circumcision is an obligation whereby the circumcised is bound to keepe the law.”164 Christ was “made a debtor to doe the whole law” and bound himself to p[er]forme the obedience for us w[hi]ch otherwise we could not have p[er]formed. But besides that principall debt of obedience which Adam and his sonnes should have p[er]formed to this day though they had never fallen there was another debt lay on us, [th]e debt of penaltie. our Saviour Christ by Circumcision gives obligat[i]‌on that he will pay that debt too.165

161 Snoddy, Soteriology, 45, 51. 162 Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England:  From Cranmer to Hooker 1534–​1603 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), 67–​69. 163 Bodl. MS Eng.th.e. 25, fol. 4r–​25v (sermon on Hebrews 9:14, dated “New Yeares day” 1625 [1626]). 164 Bodl. MS Eng.th.e 25, fol. 4v (sermon on Hebrews 9:14, dated “New Yeares day” 1625 [1626]). He cited Galatians 5:3. 165 Bodl. MS Eng.th.e 25, fol. 5r (sermon on Hebrews 9:14, dated “New Yeares day” 1625 [1626]).

Christology  207 Even when Ussher preached on the life events of Christ and highlighted their significance for the yearly life of Christians, he still infused these themes related to the covenant with Adam. The circumcision event in Christ’s life should assure people of forgiveness because “that day when [th]e foreskin of his flesh was cutt of[f]‌was the first bloud of our Savio[r] shed, and it was a pr[o]mise and pledge that all the rest should follow that all the bloud in his veynes should be shed for the redempc[i]on of his Church.”166 Ussher was able to combine doctrinal exposition with meditation on the life of Christ. Ussher shatters Davies’ distinctions between Anglican and puritan styles and their use of Christology, which is significant in that it is also an instance where Ussher brought his thoroughly Reformed covenant theology into play even under the banner of canon law. Canon law required that various rites, ceremonies, and holy days, as outlined in the Book of Common Prayer, be observed, and the Book of Common Prayer required that “the daye of the Feasts of the Circumcision of our Lord Iesus Christ” be kept.167 Ussher’s sermon blended characterizing features of conformist liturgical worship with what is commonly associated with puritan theological preaching. The evidence in previous sections should further apply here in that even in places where Ussher did not explicitly link Christological themes to the yearly cycle, he did reflect extensively on the meaning of Christ’s incarnate life. He incorporated that into his functional Christology, which was shaped around fulfilling the original covenant with Adam. Ussher confounds simplistic distinctions between Anglicans and puritans and reinforces how crucial it is to recognize the category of Reformed conformists if early modern religion in Ireland and England is to be properly understood.168

Conclusion This chapter argued that Ussher developed his Christology in conversation with the broader Christian tradition but added covenantal categories to 166 Bodl. MS Eng.th.e. 25, fol. 5r–​5v (sermon on Hebrews 9:14, dated “New yeares day” 1625 [1626]). 167 [Church of England], Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiasticall (1604), canons VI, XIII–​XIV; [Church of Ireland], Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical (Dublin, 1635), canons III, VI–​VII; [Church of England], The Booke of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments (1615), sig. A11v (“These to be observed for Holy dayes, and none other”). 168 Contra Charles W. A. Prior, Defining the Jacobean Church: The Politics of Religious Controversy, 1603–​1625 (Cambridge: CUP, 2005), 1–​64.

208  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works those traditional ideas. Any innovations he may have made in Christology were not about the two natures of Christ but in using the covenant of works to describe Christ’s mediatorial role. He appropriated and modified the hermeneutic of Christological recapitulation that Irenaeus of Lyons fostered to explain how Christ would fulfill the first Adam’s task. Anselm, somewhat differently, argued that humankind was obligated to render due honor to God, and Christ fulfilled that obligation, which began with the first Adam. Ussher picked up the Anselmian theme of the necessity to render to God what is due, but he argued that, instead of honor, Christ as the second Adam completed the obligation to fulfill the law on humanity’s behalf and offered satisfaction to procure the remission of sin. The covenant of works was the paradigmatic framework for this Christological explanation in that this covenant obligated Adam to fulfill the law, but Christ was the one who did so. Ussher also suffused the covenant of works motif into his explanation of Christ’s satisfaction. According to Ussher, since the covenant of works with the first Adam applied universally, Christ as the second Adam made a universal satisfaction. Ussher’s intellectualist presuppositions supported this universality but did not undermine his view of election. He maintained that doctrine by distinguishing between satisfaction, which was universal, and intercession, which applied to only the elect. Ussher’s development of the covenant of works motif should be clear in connection to his Christology. The covenant did not originate as an independent doctrine but resulted from the integration of several important theological presuppositions with their own biblical footing and new exegetical trajectories that read Scripture in covenantal terms. Ussher laced the implications of this covenant throughout the various doctrinal loci in particular by connecting it to the work of Christ. This reworking of older Christological ideas again underscores the underlying catholicity of the covenant of works. It also shows that the covenant was not a novel innovation in the post-​Reformation period but resulted from fresh explanations of traditional ideas set within a covenantal reading of the Bible. This traditionality defuses the notion that the covenant theology was the property of radical puritanism. It was, rather, a common Reformed theme, and Ussher, the Reformed conformist, emphasized it at least as heavily as any of his puritan counterparts. The underlying catholicity of the covenant of works is clearly seen in how naturally Ussher linked it to the major points of Christology.

6 The Covenant of Works and the Doctrines of Salvation Introduction James Ussher’s use of the covenant of works was perhaps most important when he related it to the doctrines of salvation, since, as should be clear from preceding chapters, aspects of soteriology were always closely linked to the other features of the covenant of works. The role of human works has always been an important debate in Christian theology, and Ussher joined the ranks of Reformed thinkers in denying that sinners could contribute any work that would make them right with God. This exclusion of works from sinners’ rescue obviously raises the question of how Ussher could relate the covenant of works to salvation. The answer is in some ways complex and in other ways very simple. Ussher excluded any possibility that the covenant of works could provide actual salvation to sinners, but he also incorporated ways in which it related to distinct aspects of salvation. The major distinct aspects of salvation that occupy this chapter are conversion, wherein a sinner comes to faith in Christ; justification, wherein a sinner is declared perfectly righteous in God’s sight; and sanctification, wherein a believer grows in personal godliness. So the covenant of law prepares sinners to come to Christ by making their need for a Savior known to them, it relates to justification only in that Christ fulfills its requirements and imputes that righteousness to believers, and it connects to sanctification in that the law of the covenant of works—​which of course is one iteration of the natural law—​furnishes a guide for believers as to how they can live faithfully unto God as an expression of thankfulness for rescuing them. Exploration of the links between these doctrines and the covenant of works in Ussher’s theology further demonstrates how thoroughly he used the structures of this covenant to support and integrate other important features of his theology. The previous chapters focused heavily on how Ussher built his doctrine of the covenant of works upon deeply catholic premises, but this Catholicity and the Covenant of Works. Harrison Perkins, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197514184.001.0001

210  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works chapter transitions to look at how he used the weight of that underlying catholicity to support a fully Reformed soteriology. This use of the covenant of works highlights the difference between Reformed, medieval, and Laudian soteriologies. These differences shed more light on the arguments throughout this work concerning the nature of Reformed conformity. So far, the catholicity of the underlying principles of the covenant of works has underscored Ussher’s relationship to the broader Christian tradition and highlighted the conventional foundations he reframed within Reformed covenant theology. This catholicity has indicated how Ussher adopted notions common to puritans and the established church as well. This chapter’s focus on soteriology nuances those points by emphasizing Ussher’s definitive connections to the Reformed tradition, which distinguished him from other types of conformed clergy, specifically the Laudians.1 In this regard, Stephen Hampton’s arguments about importance of the category of Reformed conformity are reinforced with a stress on the Reformed aspect of Reformed conformity.2 This chapter’s examination of soteriology is distinct from other studies of early modern Reformed doctrines of salvation in that most approach the topic from the perspective of the covenant of grace. Here, however, the focus remains on how the covenant of works informs Ussher’s articulation of conversion, justification, and sanctification.3 In some ways, the arguments here tie together loose ends that remained from other chapters more than they set forth brand-​new concepts. Ussher’s doctrine of justification in particular was more or less explicit in Chapters 2, 3, and 5 in the way that the covenant of works related to the standard of perfect righteousness, the imputation of Adam’s sin, and Christ’s provision of perfect righteousness for his people through his incarnational ministry. As this chapter examines the implications and gathers threads from previous chapters, the foundational premises of Ussher’s intellectualism do not feature as prominently here, but 1 Stephen Hampton, Anti-​Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I (Oxford: OUP, 2008), 39–​128. 2 Hampton, Anti-​Arminians, 1–​38; Stephen Hampton, “The Manuscript Sermons of Archbishop John Williams,” JEH 62, no. 4 (2011):  707–​25; Stephen Hampton, “Richard Holdsworth and the Antinomian Controversy,” JTS 62, no. 1 (April 2011):  218–​50; Stephen Hampton, “Confessional Identity,” in Anthony Milton (ed.), The Oxford History of Anglicanism, Volume I: Reformation and Identity, c. 1520–​1662 (New York: OUP, 2017), 210–​27. 3 John von Rohr, The Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986; repr. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 87–​112; R. Scott Clark, Casper Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant: The Double Benefit of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: RHB, 2008), chs. 6–​7; J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace (Göttingen: V&R, 2007), 215–​72.

Salvation  211 there are important junctures where those intellectualist presuppositions do appear, such as the nature of conversion and the need to have a record of perfect righteousness for justification rather than just best efforts. The section in this chapter on the way Ussher linked the covenant of works and personal conversion extends the argument from Chapter 4 about the relationship of covenant theology and predestination to explain the process of “becoming saved” from the individual’s perspective in light of the covenant of works. This chapter’s section on sanctification perhaps breaks the most new ground, but even in that respect we already saw in Chapter 3 that Thomas Gataker has raised the issue of the relationship between the need for personal holiness and the implications of the covenant of works. In sum, this chapter demonstrates that the covenant of works played a decisive role in the way that Ussher framed the major aspects of his soteriology.

The Laudian Context Ussher labored during a tense period for Reformed theologians in Ireland and England. Protestants in Ireland had struggled to keep their footing because Roman Catholicism was predominant, but with the accession of Charles I to the throne and William Laud’s promotion to archbishop of Canterbury, Reformed theologians in England also fell into harder times. Secondary literature has extensively analyzed Laud as a policymaker, an ecclesiastical politician, and perhaps a churchman, but there has been very little examination of his theology.4 Part of the reason for this relative neglect is likely that Laud was much more in the business of brokering policy than churning out theological reflection. Still, the intersection between soteriology and the covenant of works in Ussher’s theology is likely best understood in light of Laudian theology. This Laudian theology, however, had nothing near the systematic

4 Nicholas Tyacke, “Archbishop Laud,” in Kenneth Fincham (ed.), The Early Stuart Church, 1603–​1642 (Hong Kong: Macmillan, 1993), 51–​70; Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism, c.  1590–​1640 (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1987), 181–​244; David R. Como, “Predestination and Political Conflict in Laud’s London,” HJ 46, no. 2 (2003):  263–​94; Kenneth Fincham, “Clerical Conformity from Whitgift to Laud,” in Peter Lake and Michael Questier (eds.), Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c.  1560–​1660 (Woodbridge:  Boydell, 2000), 125–​58; Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, “The Ecclesiastical Policies of James I and Charles I,” in Early Stuart Church, 44–​47; Anthony Milton, Laudian and Royalist Polemic in Seventeenth-​ Century England (Manchester:  MUP, 2007), 105; Charles Carlton, Archbishop William Laud (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987); E. R. Adair, “Laud and the Church of England,” CH 5, no. 2 (June 1936): 121–​40.

212  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works quality found in puritan or even more generically Protestant writers. Peter Lake has astutely referred to “the Laudian style,” which is likely the best way to characterize the Laudians’ proposed views.5 The Laudian style significantly differed from Reformed divinity held by some English churchmen, but it did take its departure point from earlier ideas within the established church tradition. Lake summarized the views of Richard Hooker (1554–​1600) concerning the need for personal involvement in practical divinity as entailing that “preaching, at least as the puritans understood it, was not ‘the necessary means of salvation.’ ” Instead, “regular, decorous, and fervent participation in the style of public worship laid out in the Book of Common Prayer—​centred as it was (at least on Hooker’s rendition) on public prayer and the sacraments, rather than on the word preached—​ would do nicely.” Hooker, therefore, thought that virtuous and fervent attention to the formal practices of worship meant that people “have performed a good duty.”6 This observation, although it does not equate Hooker with the Laudians, indicates that a gravitation toward sacramental participation—​ over and against an emphasis on the preached Word—​was built, perhaps inconsistently and with tension, into some aspects of the Church of England’s traditions before the Laudian regime.7 Laud’s policymaking is perhaps clearest in his insistence on uniformity in the churches concerning their architecture and particularly the placement of altars at the east end of the sanctuaries. It was precisely these initiatives—​ which, notably, went beyond the demands of canon law—​that made the godly clergy of the period suspicious of him.8 This “Laudian style” stressed external holiness, prizing “ceremonial and liturgical aspects,” and was able “to equate an active lay piety with mere assiduous attendance at and participation in the services of the established Church.”9 The Laudian regime

5 Peter Lake, “The Laudian Style: Order, Uniformity and the Pursuit of the Beauty of Holiness in the 1630s,” in Early Stuart Church, 161–​85. 6 Peter Lake, “ ‘Puritans’ and ‘Anglicans’ in the History of the Post-​Reformation English Church,” in Oxford History of Anglicanism, 368. 7 Luca Baschera, “Righteousness Imputed and Inherent: Hooker’s Soteriology in the Context of 16th Century Continental Reformed Theology,” in W. Bradford Littlejohn and Scott N. Kindred-​ Barnes (eds.), Richard Hooker and Reformed Orthodoxy (Göttingen: V&R, 2017), 241–​54; J. V. Fesko, “Richard Hooker and John Owen on Union with Christ,” in Richard Hooker and Reformed Orthodoxy, 255–​72; W.  Brown Patterson, “Richard Hooker and William Perkins:  Elizabethan Adversaries or Allies?,” in Richard Hooker and Reformed Orthodoxy,  61–​72. 8 Roger Lockyer, Tudor and Stuart Britain, 3rd ed. (Harlow, UK: Pearson Longman, 2005), 307–​ 15; [Church of England], Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiasticall (1604), canons IV, VI, XIIII, XVI, XVII, XXIIII, XXV, LVIII, LXXXII. 9 Lake, “Laudian Style,” 165–​66.

Salvation  213 pressed complete uniformity to this vision of outward holiness throughout the established church, heightening the importance of ceremonies for official English piety. These reforms also entailed a reconsideration of the place of prayer and sacraments, and the new place these practices received certainly demoted preaching within the liturgical endeavor.10 Laud’s problem, at least in terms of his reception among the Reformed, was perhaps not so much that he outrighted attacked Reformed doctrine but that he sought to sideline and replace it with a ceremonial focus. It is not as though he advocated outright works righteousness, as his insistence on the need for divine mercy demonstrates: And, indeed, to speak properly, man hath no ground of his hope but “mercy,” no stay upon the slippery but “mercy:”—​for if he look upon God and consider Him in justice; if he look upon himself, and weigh his soul by merit, it is impossible for man to “hope,” or in “hope” not to “miscarry.”11

Laud here excluded any way for a person to have hope properly speaking before God on the basis of human merit or performance, and insisted on the necessity of God’s mercy. Further, it does not appear that Laud wanted to introduce works overtly into the doctrine of justification itself.12 Although Laud did not attack the Reformed doctrine of justification outright, neither did he support it. In his marginal notes on Robert Bellarmine’s assertion that the non-​imputation of sin is the same as the remission of sin, Laud wrote positively that this argument was “strong because this non-​imputation is materially and in effect the same as remission.”13 Again concerning Bellarmine’s point against imputation that God does not hide the sins of his people while he cleansed them, Laud wrote: This sense of non-​imputation is strong, as sins are not imputed, i.  God influenced while they are made clean, but they are not imputed because Christ had cleansed. Thus sins are called covered: not because the filth of

10 Lake, “Laudian Style,” 167–​71. 11 LW 1:52 (sermon on Psalm 22:6–​7, dated March 24, 1621, about James I’s accession). 12 LW 3:328–​31 (History of the Troubles and Trials); 6:163–​66 (Answer to the Lord Say’s Speech). 13 LW 6.2:695 (Notes on Cardinal Bellarmine; Forte quia illa non imputatio est materialiter et in effectum idem quod remissio). See Robert Bellarmine, De controversiis Christianae fidei, tomus quartus (Sartorius, 1601), 87 (Bellarmine’s controversy concerning grace to the first man) (this work is cited by column number).

214  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works sins remains yet is covered, but because it was washed away by the blood of Christ, through mercy they were covered by righteousness.14

Laud here criticized, albeit in his own personal notes, the notion that God would let sinfulness remain in a person but not count sins against them, which implies a more transformative understanding of justification than Protestantism’s forensic view. Reformed theologians did not say that believers remained entirely mired in their sins after justification, but they separated the removal of the power of sin, which they called sanctification, from the notion that God did not impute sin to the believer in justification. Needless to say, Laud’s view was a departure from the Reformed doctrine of justification, and specifically departed from the official homily on salvation, which the Thirty-​Nine Articles endorse in full.15 The irony here is that Laud’s difference from the Thirty-​Nine Articles, inasmuch as Article Eleven absorbs the whole of the homily on salvation, put him at odds with canon law, since his disagreement with the homily violated the prohibition against ascribing error to the Articles.16 It seems Laud bore some resemblance to the puritans he hated so much, although he demurred from canon law concerning doctrinal rather than ceremonial respects. In addition to Laud’s unpublished revisions to the Reformed doctrine of justification, the problem seems more to be that Laud promoted a ceremonial apparatus that did not appear to be consistent with Protestant notions of salvation. He defended the use of prescribed bodily motions in ceremonies precisely because of the superiority of the communion rite in worship: And you, my honourable Lords of the Garter, in your great solemnities, you do your reverence to Almighty God, I doubt not; but yet it is versus altare, “towards His altar,” as the greatest place of God’s residence on earth. (I say the greatest, yea, greater than the pulpit; for there ’tis Hoc est corpus meum, “This is My body;” but in the pulpit ’tis at most but Hoc est verbum meum, “This is My word.” And a greater reverence, no doubt, is due to the body than to the word of our Lord. And so, in relation, answerably to the throne where His body is usually present, than to the seat whence His word useth 14 LW 6.2:695 (Notes on Cardinal Bellarmine; Forte hic non est sensus (non imputationis), peccata non imputantur, i. Deus tegebat donec purgata essent, sed non imputantur quia Christus purgavit. Sic peccata tecta: non quod sordes peccatorum maneant sed tectae: sed quia abluta sanguine Christi, per misericordiam tecta sunt a justitia). See Bellarmine, De controversiis, 87. 15 Certain Sermonsor Homilies Appoynted to Be Read in Churches (1633), 13–​21; Articles Agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops (1628), sig. B4r–​B4v (article 11). 16 [Church of England], Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiasticall (1604), canon V.

Salvation  215 to be proclaimed. And God hold it there, at His word; for, as too many men use the matter, ’tis Hoc est verbum Diaboli, “This is the word of the Devil,” in too many places. Witness sedition, and the like to it.) And this reverence ye do when ye enter the chapel, and when you approach nearer to offer.17

The clear preeminence Laud gave to the Supper over preaching the Scripture would have roused the suspicion if not ire of the committedly Reformed, could easily have sounded like superstition, and certainly prioritized ritual over doctrine. His subsequent insistence that the “Holy Table” be placed altarwise in every church would have only heightened Reformed fears that Laud had adopted his ceremonial viewpoint from Roman Catholicism. Given that Laud trained at St. John’s College, Oxford, which had Catholic foundations during Mary I’s reign, these fears were perhaps not entirely unfounded. Laud’s emphasis on the outward and ceremonial aspects of church life was a displacement of strict Reformed values. Some studies have tried to explain Laud as essentially working within the accepted framework of the established church’s theology, meaning he did not really deviate from the traditional norms of English doctrine, but still must admit that Laud pushed against a focus on rigorous theology in favor of sacramental emphasis.18 This move was not so much a broadening of what was accepted in the established church as it was a suppression of precise theology in exchange for a focus on ceremony. This emphasis upon continual participation in ceremonies as the focus of the Christian life conflicted with Ussher’s covenantally charged soteriology, which marked a completely different approach to articulating salvation.

The Covenant of Works as Preparation for Salvation Ussher taught that the covenant of works had an important role in bringing people to faith, but the precise nature of this preparation is crucial. He thought that a robust announcement of the covenant of works’ requirements 17 LW 6.1:57 (Speech at the Censure of Bastwick, Burton, and Prynne). 18 Kevin Sharpe, “Archbishop Laud,” in Margot Todd (ed.), Reformation to Revolution: Politics and Religion in Early Modern England (London: Routledge, 1995), 71–​77; Peter White, “The Via Media in the Early Stuart Church,” in Reformation to Revolution, 78–​92; Alan Cromartie, “The Mind of William Laud,” in Charles W. A. Prior and Glenn Burgess (eds.), England’s Wars of Religion, Revisited (London: Routledge, 2011), 75–​100.

216  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works would convince people of their condemnation and show them their need for a Savior. Ussher’s use of the covenant of works to prepare people to come to faith contradicts older interpretations of “preparationism” in puritan theology. This older scholarship argued that Reformed theologians urged people to prepare themselves to be converted to Christ and saw that form of preparationism as a way to smuggle good works back into the process of salvation without being charged with Arminianism.19 Ussher, however, was explicit about the role the covenant of works plays in salvation and did not use it to reintroduce human achievement into redemption, which is not surprising since Ussher’s view was a relatively standard approach of Reformed divines.20 Ussher did not think that people prepared themselves for salvation, but that proclaiming God’s Word did when it focused on the demands of the covenant of works. Preachers, therefore, must present the law’s demands with the expectation that it would induce a sense of failure to meet those demands, which, in turn, would motivate them to go to Christ. As Chapter 3 showed, Ussher, along with William Twisse and Thomas Cartwright, taught that the law preceded the gospel, both conceptually and practically. Conceptually speaking, Ussher thought that had Adam not violated the law, there would have been no need for the gospel—​Adam would have earned justification for his posterity.21 Practically speaking, Ussher advocated a model of preaching that first outlined the demands of the covenant of works, which would draw attention to the depravity of a sinner, and only after sinners had despaired at this preaching of the law was the gospel to be offered. Ussher described this in methodological terms in two important works, the first being his rough draft of the Irish Articles: The word is that part of the external ministry that regards the handing down of doctrine and it is the Holy Spirit’s ordinary instrument of creating faith. Moreover, the order that should be habitually used in handing down this word for the purpose of creating faith is, first the covenant of law is exhorted for the purpose of laying bare sins and the penalty of sin, with the result that, with consciences stimulated, it works over the heart with a sense of God’s wrath and makes a person utterly despair of any ability in himself 19 For survey and extensive critique of this older approach, see Michael McClenahan, Jonathan Edwards and Justification by Faith (London: Routledge, 2012), 22–​38. 20 McClenahan, Edwards,  30–​35. 21 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 21v (sermon on Genesis 3:1, dated July 3, 1642).

Salvation  217 to obtain eternal life. After this preparation, the promises of the gospel are set forth with the result that a sinner, grasping the hope of forgiveness, begs for mercy from God and specifically applies these bitter consolations to his own soul, and the Spirit of God works in him especially the burning desire to believe and to repent.22

Ussher clearly placed premium importance on the ministry of preaching, and the whole task of preaching was oriented toward creating faith, not because sinners could simply be convinced of scriptural truths but because preaching “is the Holy Spirit’s ordinary instrument of creating faith.” This already marks a major difference from Laud’s ecclesiology, as previously described, which prioritized the Lord’s Table over the Lord’s Word. Ussher’s understanding of the nature of preaching, furthermore, again highlights his intellectualist understanding of faith. Regarding the announcement of the Word in conjunction with the “acts of faith,” Ussher said, “1. It is presented sub ratione verbi; ‘after you had heard the word of truth;’ and there comes in the understanding. 2.  Then sub ratione boni, as a good word, that so we should lay hold on it, and here comes in the will.”23 Additionally, his subpoints reinforced the priority he placed on the intellect: “The Act of faith answering thereto, is called in Scripture γνῶσις, and ἐπὶγνωσις, Knowledge and Acknowledgement, 1 Titus 1. 1 Peter 3.” and following this, “Acceptation, which receives Christ . . . Then a man resolves, I will take God on his word, and thereupon follows.”24 According to Ussher, the reception of knowledge clearly precedes and convinces as a prior “act of faith” before the will makes its resolution.

22 TCD MS 287, fol. 104r (Verbu[m]‌e[st] pars illa ministerii externi, quae e[st] in Doctrinae traditione. estque ordinariu[m] spiritus sancti instrumentu[m] fidem gignendi. ordo verò qu[o] in hujus verbi traditione ad fidem gignendam in usu esse soleri e[st]; primo; Foedus Legis urgetur, ad peććatu[m] et peććati poena[m] patefaciendu[m]; quo fit ut conscientiae stimulate cor cu[m] sensu irae Dei compingat. et homine[m] prorsus despectare facit ullius facultatis insitae vita[m] aeterna[m] obtinendi. Post praeparationem: hanc, Evangelii promissiones proponuntur; quò fit ut peććator spem remissionis concipiens, ā Deo miser[i]ćordia[m] depr[ae]catur, et in particulari consolationes hasce amaras, propriae animae applicat, ac in se operatu[m] habet ā spiritu Dei, credendi et re[s]ipiscendi ardens saltem desideriu[m]). 23 James Ussher, Eighteen Choice Sermons Preached in Oxford (1662), 422 (sermon on Ephesians 1:13). See Chapter 1 concerning this source regarding its inconsistent pagination. The inclusion of the sermon text in parentheses should clarify any confusion over duplicate page numbers in this volume. 24 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 423–​44 (sermon on Ephesians 1:13); CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 46v–​ 47v (sermon on Revelation 22:17, dated November 7, 1647), 47r–​48r (Communion sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:28, dated November 14, 1647), 48–​49r (sermon on Psalm 4:6–​7, dated November 28, 1647).

218  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works This preaching ministry, which was intended to create faith, had two parts, and these parts connect Ussher’s theory of preaching to the covenant of works. The first part was meant to devastate sinners by announcing the covenant of works, which would convince them of the gravity of the penalty they would have to pay in eternity for their transgressions. Ussher said that this announcement of the law covenant should make them “utterly despair.” This despair, however, was meant to be only preparation, and had to be followed with the preaching of the good news of the gospel. Ussher outlined this same approach to preaching in his 1643–​44 lectures to divinity students in Oxford: Moreover, there are two parts of Gospel ministry:  the Word and the sanctions attached in the Word. First, the Word is the part of the external ministry of the Gospel, which is contained in both word and doctrine. There are two parts of the Word, or of the Gospel doctrine. The first part of the Word is that in which the covenant of law is taught and is exhorted. The goal of this part, however, is to render hearers suitable for the other part, not so that it may persuade them, either that they can supply the righteousness of the law, or that they can obtain life by the law.25

Here again, Ussher’s emphasis on the ministry of preaching is clear. Preaching is the part of ministry that is intended to convey doctrine, or Christian truths. Given Ussher’s intellectualist presuppositions, the delivery of truth was profoundly important to him, as the mind was the entry point to change the person: “If I have a knowledge of God, and acknowledgement of him, and from my knowing, my will is conformed to accept Christ; and if when I have accepted him, I will not part from him; this is faith.”26 He argued, “The Word workes on the Understandinge: the Spirit upon the Understandinge and the Will . . . The outward meanes of our Callinge, Is the Word: the Word is the Law and the Gospel. The Law first: The Law brings mee to Feare.”27 Ussher told divinity students that announcing the covenant of works was the first part of preaching, and that the announcement was intended to “render hearers suitable for the other part.” Alan Ford interpreted Ussher’s covenant theology 25 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 39r (Ministerii vero Evangelici partes sunt duae. Verbum et Verbo annexa sanctiones. [Primu]m Verbum est pars ministerii ext[e]‌rni Evangelii quae et verbo et doctrinâ continetur. Verbi seu Evangelicae doctrinae partes sunt duae. [Prim]a qua foedus legis docetur et urgetur. hujus autem partis finis est ut auditores idoneos ad alt[e]ram parte[m] accipiendam reddat non a.[utem] ut p[er]suadeat vel iustitiam legis ab ipsis praestari posse vel vitam ab ea obtineri). 26 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 425 (sermon on Ephesians 1:13) (emphasis added). 27 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 74v (sermon on Romans 8:15, dated May 21, 1648).

Salvation  219 to mean that Christ’s satisfaction for sin “restores the ability to fulfil the law,” meaning that the covenant of works was a way for clergy to motivate the pursuit of holiness, but Ussher was actually very clear that the preaching of the covenant of works was not meant to persuade them “that they can supply the righteousness of the law, or that they can obtain life by the law.”28 Despite Ford’s unparalleled understanding of Ussher and his context, he was inaccurate about the role Ussher gave to the covenant of works. Instead Ussher said, “The thief crucified with him, acquits him; his whole life was a perfect obedience to the Law of God. Christ is the end of the Law, that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us [Rom. 10:4], not by us, we are not able to fulfill the Law; but in us, Christ did it for us; and the Father is better pleased with the thirty three years hearty obedience of his Son, then if Adam, and all his posterity had been obedient throughout the whole course of the world; so acceptable was this obedience to God.”29 According to Ussher, sinners never actually personally perform deeds that fulfill the law, even though the law is counted as having been fulfilled in them because Christ’s righteous record is given to them. Ussher self-​consciously taught that the covenant of works should convince sinners that they were unable to fulfill the law. Not only did Ussher teach the theory behind this model of announcing the covenant of works to make sinners despair before explaining the gospel promises that offered salvation, but he also practiced this method in his own preaching. He followed this pattern in the series of eighteen sermons on soteriology that he preached in 1643–​44 in Oxford before Charles I.30 The first eight sermons were directed at putting hearers under the law and urging them to repent of their sins in light of the torments in hell that awaited them if they did not turn to Christ.31 He explicitly transitioned in the ninth sermon from the law to the gospel, leaving no ambiguity that the previous sermons should have convinced his hearers of their sin and misery: You have heretofore heard that point of Christian Doctrine which concerns the knowledge of our misery, and wretched estate by nature. The substance of all is, That we are the Children of wrath and disobedience as well as others. You see then in what state every man stands, before he hath made his peace 28 Alan Ford, James Ussher: Theology, History, and Politics in Early-​Modern Ireland and England (New York: OUP, 2007), 96–​97. 29 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 377–​78 (sermon on Philippians 2:8). 30 Accounts do place Ussher as leading services before Charles in Oxford during the Civil War: Charles McNeil (ed.), The Tanner Letters (Dublin: The Stationery Office, 1943), 172. 31 Ussher, Choice Sermons,  1–​156.

220  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works with God: as long as he stands on terms of Rebellion. . . . Now being thus awaken, consider with thy self what thou hast to do, when the dreadfull trumpet of the Law hath awaken thee: consider thy state; if thou sleepest this night, Hell-​fire will be thy portion. It were better for thee therefore to awake before the flames of hell-​fire awake thee.32

Ussher’s statements were undoubtedly intense for any audience, but that was precisely the point. He wanted to shake everyone from any false assurances they had of being “good people” that had sufficiently kept the law so that they could go to heaven.33 True to his own principles, though, Ussher did not neglect the second part of the preaching ministry: “Thus having truly and plainly shewed our Sinfulness, Wretchedness, and Cursedness by nature, I come unto the second part which I proposed; to wit, Our Remedy, or our Redemption by Christ.”34 This practice of dividing preaching into the twofold categories of the covenant of works and the promises of the gospel matches the method he advocated in his writings and lectures. In his preaching to Charles, Ussher connected those earlier sermons about sinners’ misery under the law explicitly to the covenant of works. In a sermon on Ephesians 2:1–​3, he explained the connection of being dead in sin, with the need to repent as urgently as possible, to the human condition as fallen in Adam. The dual covenant structure shows very clearly in this sermon, as he compared Adam and Christ: True, but there were not more men like these, men of men, two head men, two fathers of all other men. There were but two by whom all must stand or fall, but two such men. By the fall of the first man we all fell; and if we rise not by the second man, we are yet in our sins. If he rise not, we cannot be risen. We must rise or fall by him. He is the Mediator of the second covenant. If he rise and we are in him, we shall rise with him; but if not, we are dead still. So it is in the first Adam, we all depend on him, he is the root of all mankind. . . . So in Adam, he being the head of the covenant of nature, that is, the Law, if he had stood, non of us had fallen; if he fall, noe of us all can stand. He is the peg on which all the keyes hang: if that stand, they hang fast; but if that fall, they fall with it.35

32 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 353–​55 (sermon on Philippians 2:5–​8). 33 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 48–​52 (sermon on Galatians 6:3–​4). 34 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 355 (sermon on Philippians 2:5–​8) (italics original). 35 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 66–​67 (sermon on Ephesians 2:1–​3). Interestingly, Charles Elrington, in this passage of the nineteenth-​century collected works, had “So in Adam, he being the head of

Salvation  221 Ussher clearly linked his discussion on sinners’ misery under the law to his doctrine of the covenant of works. The reason his hearers were dead in sin and needed a Savior was because Adam had represented them in the covenant of works. When he transgressed the law covenant, he plunged the rest of humanity into a death sentence with him. Ussher further expanded on this covenantal motif in a later sermon on Galatians 3:22: You see in this excellent portion of Scripture the two covenants of Almighty God: to wit, the covenant of Nature, and the covenant of grace. The first of Nature, which was written by God in mans heart, and this is the holy Law of God, by vertue whereof a man was to continue in that intergrity, holinesse, and uprightnesse, in which God had first created him, and to serve God according to that strength he first enabled him with, that so he might live thereby. But now when man had broken this Covenant, and enter’d into a state of Rebellion against God, he’s shut up in misery, but not in misery for ever, as the Angels that fell were, being reserved in chaines till the judgment of the great day: No, the Lord hath shut him up in prison, only for a while, that so he may better make a way for their escape and delieverance, and for their entrance into the second covenant of grace: that so making him see his own misery, wherein by nature he is, and cutting him off from his own stock, he may be ingrafted into Christ, draw sap and sweetnesse from him, and bring forth fruits to everlasting life. And this is the method the Scripture used: It concludes all under sin, that so the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. It’s no new Doctrine devised by us, but it’s the course and method of Scripture: for it begins in this great work with imprisoning and shutting up.36

In this quote, Ussher outlined every theme this section aims to prove. He tied the covenant of works to the specific aspect of conversion wherein sinners were brought to understand the depths of their sin. Further, in his terminology, he urged the covenant of works on his hearers and made it explicit that they could not meet the demands of this law covenant. They needed to be the covenant of nature or works, that is, the law,” UW 13:53 (italics added). There is no basis for this extrapolation in the 1660 edition that he used for his edition, so it is not clear why “or works” was inserted. James Ussher, Eighteen Sermons Preached in Oxford, 1640 (1660), 67.

36 Ussher, Eighteen Sermons, 76–​77 (sermon on Galatians 3:22).

222  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works relocated from their position in the first Adam to be connected to the second Adam, Jesus Christ. This passage also highlights important themes that have run throughout this study. Ussher again emphasized that Adam was meant to fulfill the law with the strength he had by virtue of his creation.37 In contrast to the Roman Catholic view, Ussher did not think Adam needed extra help or grace to meet the terms of the covenant of law but was perfectly capable of doing that with his natural abilities.38 Adam’s ability was unblemished “till it was broken by the fall: but now it is insufficient.”39 Now, however, the covenant of works serves primarily to imprison sinners under the condemnation of the law. If they are to escape that destruction, they must turn away from the covenant of works and embrace the covenant of grace. Attention has been focused on this particular sermon series from 1643–​44 in regard to the covenant of works’ relationship to conversion, not because Ussher set forth something novel there but because that series’ historical context is particularly interesting.40 That Ussher was not promoting something new can easily be seen from the works of his mentors and friends, as already noted. William Perkins made the same point regarding the remaining uses of the law in his commentary on Galatians: “The Lord since mans fall, repeats the law in his old tenour, not to mocke men, but for other weightie causes. The first is to teach us, that the law is of a constant and unchangeable nature. The second is, to advertise us of our weaknesse, and to show us what we cannot doe.”41 William Twisse argued this view as well.42 The interesting aspect of these sermons’ historical context is that Ussher preached them before Charles during the civil war. Years earlier, Charles, along with Archbishop Laud, had suppressed Reformed preaching, especially in connection to the doctrine of predestination, and marginalized Reformed theologians from ecclesiastical promotion, creating an “anti-​Calvinist” establishment.43 Despite 37 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 21r (sermon on Genesis 3:1, dated July 3, 1642), 27v (sermon on Genesis 6:5, dated July 31, 1642); James Ussher, The Principles of Christian Religion (1653), 7, 10–​12, 69, 71–​ 72; James Ussher, A Body of Divinitie (1645), 104–​5, 124–​25; Irish Articles, sig. B2v (article 21), sig. B3r (article 23). 38 Bellarmine, De Controversiis,  15–​42. 39 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 49 (sermon on Galatians 6:3–​4). 40 Ussher preached similarly on conversion in CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 72r–​77r (sermons on 2 Thessalonians 2:13–​14, dated April 30, 1648; 2 Corinthians 6:1–​2, dated May 7, 1648; Romans 8:15, dated May 21, 1648; 2 Thessalonians 1:11, dated May 28, 1648; Hebrews 4:16, dated June 4, 1648). 41 WWP 2:237. Perkins’ statement about the immutable law seem to conflict with his claim that God can command the contrary, as discussed in Chapter 3. 42 William Twisse, A Briefe Catechetical Exposition of Christian Doctrine (1633), 3–​4. 43 Anthony Milton, “Licensing, Censorship and Religious Orthodoxy in Early Stuart England,” HJ 41 (1998): 625–​51; Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, 248–​65; Fincham and Lake, “Ecclesiastical Policies of James and Charles,” 37.

Salvation  223 the political tensions this suppression had caused, which in part helped cause the civil war, Charles’ relocation to Oxford created a new chance for peace talks, which Parliament instigated.44 Ussher was not oblivious to these political ramifications as he preached on conversion, and he actually addressed them head-​on in the first sermon of this series. He summarized the three points of that sermon as “1. Continuance in sin brings certain death. Or, For sin Gods judgments are on particular Nations and persons. 2. If particular Nations or persons turn away from their evil courses, no hurt shall come near them . . . 3. It behoves every one speedily to set about the work of conversion.”45 Although Ussher had sided with the king by leaving London to join him in Oxford, it is difficult not to think that he intended these words, which addressed the need for nations to turn away from sin corporately, to have some relevance for Charles’ course of action. Parliament had initiated the negotiations, but during 1643, when these sermons were most likely delivered, Charles was demanding more political concessions than Parliament would tolerate.46 Although Ussher’s pattern of preaching the covenant of works before the gospel in order to give sinners a sense of their wretchedness was his normal principle for bringing about new conversions, he most likely had further hopes of provoking his king to repentance over his intransigent demands that were handicapping genuine negotiations with Parliament.47 Ussher riskily advocated a precise version of covenantally fueled Reformed theology in hopes that the soteriological principles that promoted repentance would induce a change of behavior in Charles. While the timing of these sermons highlights their importance for the political context of 1643–​44, there are further considerations within this same series on conversion that again illuminate Ussher’s Reformed conformity. High churchmanship under William Laud was decidedly focused on participation in sacramental rituals, which contrasted drastically with the puritan emphasis on experiential religion.48 Peter Lake’s summary of how Richard Hooker, the model Elizabethan conformist, approached practical divinity could be said to have applied in the Laudian regime with far more intensity. Hooker objected to the puritan emphasis on the necessity of preaching for 44 Richard Cust, Charles I: A Political Life (Hong Kong: Pearson Longman, 2005), 371. 45 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 2 (sermon on Hebrews 4:7). 46 Cust, Charles I, 372–​73. 47 Cust, Charles I, 375–​82. 48 Tom Webster, Godly Clergy in Early Stuart England: The Caroline Puritan Movement, c. 1620–​ 1643 (Cambridge:  CUP, 1997), 142–​48; Cust, Charles I, 137–​39, 143–​45, 261–​62; Tyacke, Anti-​ Calvinists, 239–​40.

224  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works salvation, instead focusing on “regular, decorous, and fervent participation” in public prayer and the sacraments as they were articulated in the Book of Common Prayer.49 Although Ussher was a conformist, he still adopted a strong emphasis on preaching and the need for conversion throughout this sermon series, even explicitly promoting his experimental predestinarianism.50 The point of his first two sermons was that God had to act sovereignly to enable sinners to repent, and so if hearers felt pangs of conviction, they should not tarry to act on them. Even with this emphasis on God’s sovereignty in the human act of repentance, Ussher still directed attention away from abstract speculation on the decree to focus on the individual’s experience of being effectually called to faith: You hear much talk of Gods eternal, & everlasting election, and we are too apt to rest on this, that if we are elected to salvation we shall be saved, and if not, we shall be damned; troubling our selves with Gods work of Praedestination, whereas this works no change in the party elected, until it come unto him in his own person. What is Gods election to me, that he chooses the godly, and refuses the wicked? Its nothing to my comfort, unlesse I my self am actually elected. We are to look to this actual election. The other is but Gods love to sever me. But what is my actual election? Its that, when God touches my heart, and translates me from the death of sin, to the life of grace. Now there are certain times which God appoints for this election, wherein he uses the means to work on us, and of which he can say, what could I do more then I have done? Now if it be thus in the point of election, what must we think of the point of reprobation? May there not be actual rejection as well as actual election? And mayst thou not dear since thou hast lived thus under the means of grace; That God hath waited these, not only three but many years, the dew of heaven continually falling on thee, and that yet thou shouldst remain unfruitful.51

Ussher pointed to the individual’s experience of effectual calling, that moment when God sovereignly and persuasively convinces a sinner to trust in Christ, as the only way to be assured of election. Even with this puritan emphasis on personal religion, however, Ussher did not neglect the importance 49 Lake, “ ‘Puritans’ and ‘Anglicans,’ ” 368; Webster, Godly Clergy, 142–​43. 50 Richard Snoddy, The Soteriology of James Ussher:  The Act and Object of Saving Faith (New York: OUP, 2014), 215–​22, 234. 51 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 35 (sermon on Hebrews 4:7).

Salvation  225 of the sacraments. He highlighted that baptism is a crucial feature of the Christian life, but it too has continual personal relevance: “Canst thou think there is no more required but onely the outward Baptism, or that there is no more in Baptism but the outward washing of the flesh?”52 Further, that which we seal, is not compleat till then, till we have final grace. The water of Baptism quenches the fire of Purgatory; for it is not accomplished till final grace is received. We are now under the Physicians hands, then shall we be cured. Baptism is not done onely at the Font, which is a thing deceives many; for it runs through our whole life: nor hath it consummation till our dying day, till we receive final grace: the force and efficacy of Baptism is for the washing away of sin tomorrow as well as the day past: the death of sin is not till the death of the body, and thefore its said we must buried with him by Baptism into his death. Now after death we receive final grace; till when, this washing and the vertue thereof hath not its consummation.53

This passage, especially combined with the previous one about election, shows us how Ussher defied easy categorization. He placed heavy emphasis on the need for both personal conversion and the continual pursuit of repentance and holiness, but he also emphasized the sacraments’ importance, particularly baptism, to convey grace until that grace is completed for believers at Christ’s return. Passages such as this one on baptism could, if extracted, could easily give the impression that Ussher was an outright high church ceremonialist, but it must be read together with his other works, and even other sermons in this series, that point out how personal faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.

The Covenant of Works and Justification Ussher’s suffusion of the covenant of works throughout his theological system arguably came to a pinnacle in the way he related it to the doctrine of justification. The doctrine of justification by faith alone is one of the defining doctrines of Reformed theology, and Ussher fully adopted the mantle of previous reformers who vigorously defended it as, in the words of John Calvin,

52 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 54 (sermon on Galatians 6:3–​4). 53 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 55 (sermon on Galatians 6:3–​4).

226  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works “the princip[al] hinge that must sustain religion”; Ussher himself called it “the greatest of all blessings.”54 Despite Ussher’s insistence, as seen in the previous section, on the need for individuals to pursue repentance and turn away from disobedience, he was equally clear concerning the doctrine of justification that people are “redeemed only By the merits of my Saviour.”55 This section examines Ussher’s point there and argues that he used the covenant of works to support and inform Christ’s merits, and that, as was highlighted in Chapters 2 and 5, those merits were imputed to believers in their justification so that they could be counted as having fulfilled the terms of the covenant of works. The bulk of Ussher’s discussion on the doctrine of justification, particularly as he connected it to the covenant of works, is in his sermons, but before turning to analyze those documents and the debates and controversies that surrounded them, it is helpful to do some ground clearing. He maintained a consistent, basic understanding of the doctrine as consisting of the forgiveness of sins, because Christ had paid the penalty for those sins by dying on the cross, and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, which was when God credited the record of Christ’s life of perfectly fulfilling the law and the requirements of the covenant of works to the believer. Ussher wrote in the manuscript version of his two briefer catechisms: Q. What is the first mayne benefit which we do get by thus receaving Christ? A. Justification: wherby in Christ we are accounted righteous; and so are freed from condemnation, and have assurance of everlasting life. 1 Cor. 1.30; 2 Cor. 5.19.21; Rom. 4.3.4.5.6.7.8.9/​5.11.19.17.18.19/​8.1.2.33.34; 1 Joh. 1.7 Q. Wherein standeth this justification? A. In the Forgiveness of our sinnes, and the imputing of Christes righteousness unto us. Q. Whereby then may we look to be justified in the sight of God? A. Only by the merits of Christ Jesus, receaved of us by Faithe. Phil. 3.9; Rom. 3.26.27.28; Gal. 2.16/​3.856

54 CO, 30:533 (Ea ergo nunc penitus discutienda, et ita discutienda ut meminerimus praecipuum esse sustinendae religionis cardinem, quo maiorem attentionem curamque afferamus); Ussher, Choice Sermons, 396 (sermon on Romans 5:1). 55 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 29r (sermon on Genesis 6:5, dated August 7, 1642). 56 TCD MS 291, fol. 16v–​17r.

Salvation  227 He incorporated this understanding of the two aspects of justification into his rough draft of the Irish Articles in 1615, and included an article about how faith works as the instrument of justification: The benefits of the gospel having been communicated with the elect are either common to all the elect or special to some. The benefits are common to all the elect so that they are justified only on account of God’s grace, which he freely gives to those in his Son by imputing their sins to Christ and imputing Christ’s righteousness to them. Therefore, when the sinner takes hold of Jesus Christ, he obtains the remission of sins and the imputation of righteousness from God . . .57 Faith is the Gift of God by which a person, having been persuaded not only about the truth of the divine word in general but also about the promises of the Gospel in particular, applies Jesus Christ with all his benefits to himself for the comfort of his soul. We, moreover, are declared to be justified by faith, not because we are righteous on account of this virtue’s dignity, because in fact Christ alone is our righteousness in this method of justification, but rather because faith (and faith alone) is the apt instrument for apprehending and receiving (not effecting or procuring) our justification, and, more precisely, for joining us with Christ with the result that we become partakers of all his merits.58

This second article on the nature of faith also had a corresponding treatment in the manuscript catechisms: Q. How are we saide to be iustifyed by Faithe? A. Not as though we were juste for the worthinesse of this virtue: (for in such respect Christ alone is our righteousnesse:) but because faithe, (and faithe only) is the instrument fitt to apprehend and receave, (not to worke

57 TCD MS 287, fol. 103r (Evangelii beneficia cu[m]‌electis com[m]unicata, vel electis omnibus com[m]unia sunt, aut quibusdam propria. Beneficia omnibus electis com[m]unia sunt, ut per gratiam solius Dei iustificentur, quâ gratis illos filio suo donat, imputando illoru[m] peććata Christo, Christiq[ue] iustitiam illis: Quo cu[m] peććator Jesu[m] Christu[m] possideat, à Deo Remissione peććatoru[m], ac Iustitias imputationem obtinet). 58 TCD MS 287, fol. 103v (Fides e[st] Donu[m]‌Dei, quo homo persuasus non solu[m] de veritate verbi divini in genere, sed et promissioru[m] Evangelii in particulari, Jesu[m] Christu[m] cu[m] omnibus suis beneficiis in animae ipsius solatiu[m] sibi applicat. Dicimur aute[m] fide iustificari, non quod ob hujus virtutis dignitate[m] iusti sim[us], nam hoc modo solus Christus e[st] nostra iustitia; sed quoniam fides (eaq[ue] sola) e[st] instrumentu[m] aptu[m] apprenhendi et recipiendi (non efficiendi aut procurandi) iustificationem nostrum, atq[ue] adeó cu[m] Christo connectendi, ut omniu[m] meritori[um] eius participes fiam[us]).

228  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works or procure) our justification: and so to knitte us unto Christe, that we may be made partakers of all his benefittes.59

These texts show that early in his career Ussher had a clear definition of justification as consisting in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.60 Furthermore, faith was not a virtue that warranted justification from God, but was simply the instrument, the lifeline, whereby a person takes hold of or is connected to Christ and so partakes of that justifying blessing. This satisfaction of Christ, however, is communicated to the elect through that wonderful union in which Christ is united with the Church precisely so that each of the elect are engrafted into him and likewise grow up with him into one mystical body, of which Christ himself is head. The bond of this union is communion with God’s Spirit, which has flowed from the man Christ Jesus to every member of the elect, so to say it supplies spiritual life from the head to those members and it makes them partakers of Christ and his benefits.61

Ussher, however, adopted these same formulations about justification when he revised his catechisms for authorized publication in 1653: Q. How then must sinfull man look to be justified in the sight of God? A. By the mercy of God alone, whereby he freely bestoweth his Son upon him: whereupon the sinner being possessed of Jesus Christ, obtaineth of God remission of sins, and imputation of righteousness.62

We can gather from these works where Ussher provided definitional material for justification that he maintained the same basic premises throughout his career. 59 TCD MS 291, fol. 26r. 60 See also UW 14:178 (Tractus de controversiis pontificiis). 61 TCD MS 287, fol. 103r (Haec a[utem] Christi satisfactio com[m]‌unicatur electis per admirabile[m] illam unionem, quâ Christus cu[m] Eććlesia unitur: adeó ut omnes electi in ipsu[m] inserti, ac simul cum illo in unu[m] corp[us] mysticu[m] cresćunt, cuj[us] caput e[st] ipse Christ[us]. Cuj[us] unionis vinculu[m] est Spiritus Dei com[m]unio, quaê ab homine Christo Jesu derivata omnibus electoru[m] membris, tanq[uam] ā capite membris illis vitam spirituale[m] praebet, et illi Christi, ac beneficioru[m] eius participes facit). 62 Ussher, Principles (1653), 96–​97, citing Romans 3:24–​28; 5:15–​19; Ephesians 2:8–​9; Isaiah 9:6; Galatians 2:14; Philippians 3:8–​9; Revelation 1:5; Colossians 1:14, 21–​22; 2:13; Acts 13:38–​39.

Salvation  229 It is also clear both that the phrase “the merits of Christ” as well as exegesis of several key texts, such as Romans 3 and Philippians 3, were important to his understanding of justification.63 This study will not pursue specific details of Ussher’s exegetical approaches to these passages, but Ussher’s regularly cited texts do provide a guide for which sermons will address the topic of justification most directly, since he usually preached from one or two verses. The intersection of Ussher’s explanations of justification from these texts with the crucial notion of “the merits of Christ,” particularly as he related this to the covenant of works, will occupy the majority of this section, but first it is important to frame this discussion in light of Richard Snoddy’s excellent research into Ussher’s doctrine of justification. First, Snoddy rightly argued that Ussher rejected the merit of human works in salvation.64 Chapter 3 of the present study argued that Ussher did adopt the structure of meritum ex pacto, but the specific argument there related to Adam’s role in the covenant of works when he was unaffected by sin. That argument is fully compatible with Snoddy’s point inasmuch as both underscore that Ussher rejected the possibility that any works could merit a sinner’s salvation. Ussher’s adoption of the meritum ex pacto concept required perfect obedience to the covenantal law through natural strength, which was something that Ussher denied sinners could do. This section will continue to spell out this point’s implications as it explores the ways that Ussher intertwined the doctrines of the covenant of works, Christology, and justification. Second, Snoddy documented some terminological development in Ussher’s discussions of justification in which Ussher later began to speak of “double justification.”65 This terminology referred not to two events of the same kind of justification but to two different sorts of justification. The first was that God declared a person to be righteous in a forensic sense. In relation to this study’s focus on covenant theology, the first sort of justification meant that the justified person had fulfilled the terms of the covenant and was entitled to the promised rewards. Of course, this record did not belong intrinsically to the sinner but was given to the sinner by Christ, who acted as the second Adam. The second sort of justification was that the person was made inherently righteous. The difference is that in the first sort a person was declared righteous despite that person’s true record, and in this



63 Ussher, Principles (1653), 22–​23.

64 Snoddy, Soteriology, 166–​74. 65 Snoddy, Soteriology, 98–​106.

230  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works second sort the person is transformed to be actually righteous even though that, according to Ussher, will remain an imperfect righteousness.66 Earlier Reformed theologians used this terminology of double justification to refer to the distinction between justification and sanctification before the terminology of the double or twofold benefits had been developed.67 Ussher, however, saw the terminology as an opportunity to build a bridge between the way the patristic writers used the terminology of iustificare and the way Reformed Protestants used it in the post-​Reformation period. “Driven by exegetical or apologetic concerns,” he appropriated concepts from early church authors and put distance between those authors and Roman Catholic theologians.68 The present study would claim, perhaps a bit more strongly than Snoddy, that Ussher essentially used this language equivocally, so that he could enlist the works of first-​century theologians for his own purposes.69 There is no doubt that Ussher did increasingly incorporate this terminology, but as Snoddy showed, it never changed the substantial features of Ussher’s doctrine of justification.70 This all too brief look at Snoddy’s important and detailed discussions on Ussher’s views of justification should sufficiently clear the ground so that we may move to issues pertaining directly to this study—​namely, how Ussher used the covenant of works to inform his doctrine of justification. Ussher, as shown in Chapter  2, had defined the covenant of works as requiring perfect obedience to the law, and of course this raised a problem for sinners, who would no longer ever be able to render perfect obedience to the law. Some medieval theologians worked out a new system wherein God would accept less than perfect efforts and attribute perfection to them. There is at least one major passage that shows that Ussher knew about these reworked views of merit and was concerned to refute them: Strange conceits men have now adayes, and strange Divinity is brought forth into the world: That if a man does as much as lies in him, and what he is of himself able to do? nay farther, though he be a Heathen, that knows

66 Snoddy, Soteriology, 175–​76. 67 R. Scott Clark, “The Benefits of Christ: Double Justification in Protestant Theology Before the Westminster Assembly,” in Anthony T. Selvaggio (ed.), The Faith Once Delivered:  Celebrating the Legacy of Reformed Systematic Theology and the Westminster Assembly: Essays in Honor of Dr. Wayne Spear (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2007), 107–​34. 68 Snoddy, Soteriology, 104. 69 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 397–​99. 70 Snoddy, Soteriology, 105.

Salvation  231 not Christ, yet if he doth the best he can; if he live honestly towards men, according to the conduct of his reason, and hath a good mind towards God, it’s enough, he need not question his eternal welfare. A cursed and desperate Doctrine they conclude hence: Why (say they) may not this man be saved as well as the best? But if it be so, I ask such, What is the benefit and advantage of the Jew then the Gentile? What is the benefit of Christ? of the Church? of Faith? of Baptism? of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper? This ground of Pelagianism, is that for which the Church abhors us: when we shall undertake to bring a man to salvation without Christ: where as if he be not under grace, under Christ, he is accursed. If thou wilt be saved by the Law, it is not thy endeavour or doing; what lieth in thee that will serve the turn; every jot and tittle that the Law requires must be fulfilled.71

There are many issues in this passage, which will help frame the rest of this section. The first noteworthy point is that Ussher was taking issue with medieval notions of congruent merit, doctrines that he thought were still being taught in his day. Crucially, congruent merit was linked to a form of medieval covenant theology articulated by the Franciscans, primarily Gabriel Biel (c. 1420–​1495). Ussher clearly had Biel’s teaching in his crosshairs when he attacked those who argued that someone is saved if that person “does as much as lies in him, and what he is of himself able to do,” and it is in light of Ussher’s contrast with Biel that the importance of his doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience becomes apparent. Biel, who taught theology at the University of Tübingen, took a radically nominalist view of justification that Heiko Oberman rightly called “essentially Pelagian.”72 Biel’s basic premise, in regard to justification, was that “God will not deny grace to those who do what is in them,” which was a version of medieval covenant theology. In this version, God made a covenant to accept best efforts as sufficient to warrant justification.73 God infused a habit, or principle, of grace in a person, which gives extra help to sinful human faculties so that an act can be fully meritorious.74 Biel thought that a process “of self-​justifying piety,” based on 71 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 85 (sermon on Galatians 3:22). 72 Heiko Augustinus Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Academic, 1983), 177; contra Alistair McGrath, Iustitia Dei:  A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 3rd ed. (Cambridge:  CUP, 2005), 99–​102. 73 McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 286, 87, 114–​15. 74 Oberman, Harvest, 161–​62.

232  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works the Holy Spirit’s coming, helps us achieve sufficient works to reach final justification at the end of life.75 This understanding of justification based on a sinner’s best efforts, however, obviously assumed that there was no unchanging natural law that God had built into creation as the standard of justification.76 Nominalists such as Biel in fact denied any abiding natural law because they thought universal, categorical language (such as “righteousness”) was an arbitrary invention, having no connection to deeper realities in the way a standard of natural law would.77 The nominalist pattern was a version of radical voluntarism wherein there were no reasons for what things were called (contra intellectualism or, more generally, realism), but only arbitrary designations, in that they were just willed into being apart from any undergirding reality. These radically voluntarist principles are clear in how Biel based his covenant theology on the distinction of God’s two wills. God’s antecedent will was that he chose to save creatures and establish a means to save them, while his consequent will was to save based on foreseen merits.78 Voluntarism is clear in the premise of the consequent will: that the method of salvation was completely open to God’s choosing and that God chose to base salvation on man’s cooperation with infused grace, which he would, again by an act of will, accept as meritorious righteousness. This construction clearly conflicts with everything this study has explored about Ussher’s covenant of works, but that conflict is most poignant in regard to the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience. Whereas Biel advocated justification based on a completely arbitrary standard of “as much as lies in him,” Ussher insisted that the covenant of works required perfect obedience from every person to be justified.79 Ussher, in a sermon delivered in early 1626, argued: There is Christs oblat[i]‌on w[hi]ch received force from his eternall spirit by w[hi]ch we are iustified, by w[hi]ch we are sanctified so that as the words following without spott or without fault is intimated Christs active 75 Oberman, Harvest, 355. 76 A. S. McGrade, “Natural Law and Moral Omnipotence,” in Paul Vincent Spade (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ockham (Cambridge: CUP, 1999), 276, 279–​80, 274–​86. 77 Armand A. Maurer, Medieval Philosophy (New York: Random House, 1964), 243, 277–​81; Gyula Klima, “Natures:  The Problem of Universals,” in A. S. McGrade (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge: CUP, 2003), 205; Stephen P. Marrone, “Medieval Philosophy in Context,” in Cambridge Companion to Medieval Philosophy, 37. 78 Richard Viladesau, The Triumph of the Cross: The Passion of Christ in Theology and the Arts from the Renaissance to the Counter-​Reformation (New York: OUP, 2008), xxviii. 79 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 43v (sermon on John 1:14, dated October 30, 1642); 53r (sermon on Philippians 2:6, dated December 19, 1647); Ussher, Choice Sermons,  85–​89.

Salvation  233 obedience, the purity of his nature and of his act[i]ons so in this he offred himselfe is comprised the other p[ar]t namely the p[er]formance of his passive obedience for still remember, we lye under a double debt, first the principall debt that Adam owed to God ev[er]ie day and hower and minute though he had not fallen, that was the debt of obedience, we are debtors not to the flesh but to the spirit. we are bound to [th]e performance of good workes. Besides that there is another debt that is accessorie or accidentall w[hi]ch we call Nomine poenae, w[hi]ch comes by way of Penaltie, w[hi] ch by reason of Adams fall is come upon us; now though a man may pay Nomine poenae it doth not discharge him from the principall debt, and the payment of the principall discharges not from [th]e penaltie.80

He repeated this line of argument in a sermon in London on January 16, 1647: The Principall Det, that Ancient obedience that man owt to God: but man Rebelled: and God must not bee a looser bycause man turnd Bankrupt. The det still upon us: Adam was a wilfull spendthrift: so Christ must become obedient all the dayes of His life here: Hee is to fulfill the Law of God for us:81

Both these sermons focused on how Christ recapitulated Adam and how, although the Son of God had no personal need to obey God, he nevertheless kept the law so that he could provide a record of perfect righteousness for those whom he would save. As Adam was supposed to have fulfilled the law by the strength of his nature, Christ “preserved Himselfe By his own strength and his owne Spirit.”82 Christ’s voluntary offering of flawless obedience, however, related to the need for someone to attain perfect righteousness. Ussher emphasized that Christ’s obedience could be offered in our stead precisely because it was voluntary: “I declare to you that Godhead could not obey, the Godhead could not suffer, therefore such a debt as was to be paid by performeing of obedience by subiection.”83 Throughout this 1626 sermon Ussher stressed that orthodox Christology taught that the Son was unable to obey according to his divine nature, as obedience is only proper to servants and the Son was eternally equal to God and not eternally a servant. The Son

80 Bodl. MS Eng. th.e.25. fol. 39v–​40r (sermon on Hebrews 9:14, dated 1625 [1626]).

81 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 54r (sermon on Philippians 2:8, dated January 16, 1647 [1648]).

82 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 54v (sermon on Philippians 2:8, dated January 16, 1647 [1648]). 83 Bodl. MS Eng. th.e.25, fol. 29r (sermon on Hebrews 9:14, dated 1625 [1626]).

234  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works assumed a human nature so that he would be able to take on the servant’s role and obey the Father’s will by keeping the law. Ussher framed Christ’s lawkeeping in the same terms that he used to describe the covenant of works in the January 16, 1647, sermon: But besides that principall debt of obedience which Adam and his sonnes should have p[er]formed to this day though they had never fallen there was another debt lay on us, [th]e debt of penalitie.84

As noted in Chapter 5, Ussher indicated that Christ’s work was shaped by his role of recapitulating Adam’s task of obedience in the covenant of works. Again, in line with his intellectualist principles, Ussher saw this as a matter of fittingness in accord with the ideals of justice established in the natural law rather than as a voluntaristic assignment for the Son. Christ’s divine nature ensured that he would be the person that was able to meet these perfect standards of justice: It is necessarie that Christ should be an eternall spirit, that he should be obedient unto the lawe and pure and without spott, because when God comes to exact satisfaction in pointe of Justice, it must be wrought by our Redeemer out of his owne store.85

Ussher, in contrast to Biel’s nominalist approach to the law’s requirement, insisted that justification requires perfect obedience, and since humankind has fallen in Adam, only a divine person could now render obedience sufficient enough to merit salvation for believers. This point is strikingly similar to Anselm of Canterbury’s Christological arguments, examined in Chapter 5. According to Ussher, Christ was the person who achieved perfect obedience to the law, but that perfect record still must be distributed to those who believe in him if they are to be justified. Ussher—​unlike Biel, who thought that a person’s best efforts were acceptable for justification—​taught that a person can be justified only by a perfect righteousness. Christ, however, provides this perfect righteousness to those who trust in him. For Ussher, the imputation of Christ’s obedience was the premier aspect of justification.86 In two sermons before Charles in Oxford in 1643–​44, he argued at length that justification was entirely an act of God imputing

84 Bodl. MS Eng. th.e.25, fol. 5r (sermon on Hebrews 9:14, dated “New yeares day” 1625 [1626]). 85 Bodl. Eng. th.e.25, fol. 33r (sermon on Hebrews 9:14, dated 1625 [1626]). 86 Snoddy, Soteriology, 113–​22.

Salvation  235 Christ’s righteousness to the believer.87 His point was that justification was not something wherein God changed the person, but rather, God credited to the believer something that was achieved in a way entirely external way to the person. Ussher insisted that justification was completely a singular act of imputation, and Snoddy extensively analyzed this point, rightly noting that Ussher was most likely responding to arguments that Thomas Gataker made against the idea of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience.88 Heber de Campos has shown that Gataker’s own view became a major factor, perhaps in contrast to others who may have held the same view, in causing debate over the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in the time just before and at the Westminster Assembly.89 Gataker was also Ussher’s most immediate target, but the reason Ussher made this argument so vigorously was likely because it had significant correspondence with other views that were massive departures from the Reformed doctrine of justification. As noted above, William Laud approved of Robert Bellarmine’s arguments against imputative understandings of justification.90 Since Ussher’s task as professor of theological controversies at Trinity College Dublin had been to refute Bellarmine, he likely saw Gataker’s view as one step toward the Laudian concessions toward Roman Catholic notions.91 Although this point concerning Gataker was raised in Chapter 2, it is worth revisiting here, as it has direct bearing on the connections Ussher drew between justification and the covenant of works. The issue of whether or not Christ’s active obedience was imputed to the believer in justification was debated in the first recorded sessions of the Westminster Assembly, and these debates form the most likely background of Ussher’s emphasis on imputation in the 1643–​44 sermons at Oxford.92 Snoddy

87 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 404–​44 (sermons on Romans 5:1). 88 Snoddy, Soteriology, 106–​13. 89 Heber Carlos de Campos Jr., Doctrine in Development: Johannes Piscator and Debates Over Christ’s Active Obedience (Grand Rapids, MI: RHB, 2018), 196–226. 90 LW 6.2:695 (Notes on Cardinal Bellarmine); Bellarmine, De Controversiis, 87. 91 Ussher argued in his lectures against Bellarmine: “Those God has justified unto life, by the remission of sins and the imputation of righteousness, he does not condemn them to prison after death, and does not send them away from his presence. God had justified the Fathers to life, by the remission of sins and the imputation of righteousness. ‘Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness.’ ” (Quos Deus in vita justificavit, peccatis remissis et imputata Justitia; eos post mortem ad carceres non condemnat, et a praesentia sua non ablegat. At Patres Deus in vita justificavit, peccatis remissis, et imputata Justitia. “Credidit Abraham Deo, et imputatum est ei ad justificatiam”), UW 14:178. See also UW 14:126–​27. 92 Alan D. Strange, “The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the Westminster Assembly,” in Michael A.  G. Haykin and Mark Jones (eds.), Drawn into Controversie:  Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism (Göttingen: V&R, 2011), 31–​51; Jeffrey K. Jue, “The Active Obedience of Christ and the Theology of the Westminster

236  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works followed the 1640 date for Ussher’s Oxford sermons and argued that Ussher was responding to some of Gataker’s sermons preached in London in 1638, but Chapter 1 of this study argued that Ussher’s sermons dated to his stay in Oxford during 1643–​44. Although it is possible that Ussher was aware of Gataker’s 1638 arguments, he was certainly in touch with some of the Westminster divines regarding the justification debates, as evidenced by the fact that Daniel Featley (1582–​1645) was imprisoned for sending his speeches on justification to Ussher.93 The fact that Featley sent his speeches from the debates about imputation—​wherein he opposed Gataker, among others—​to Ussher makes it all the more likely that Ussher’s sermons were a response to Featley’s reports about the debate. It is perhaps telling that the speeches Featley sent to Ussher were published in Oxford in 1644, precisely where and when this book argues Ussher tackled that very topic as a response to Featley’s letter.94 There is greater historical reason, therefore, to think that Ussher was indirectly contributing to debates at the Assembly through his sermons in Oxford around that same time, as it was reported that the Assembly frequently mentioned Ussher “with great honour and respect.”95 The content of Gataker’s arguments at the Assembly are essentially the same as those in the 1638 sermons, which were later published, which means Snoddy’s analysis of the content of this debate needs no adjustment whatsoever. The correspondence between Gataker’s arguments in the 1638 sermons and in his debates at the Assembly does, however, highlight the greater likelihood that Ussher’s Oxford sermons were preached in the mid-​ 1640s, since it is speculation that he learned of Gataker’s 1638 sermons, which were not published until 1679, while in Ireland but Featley’s letters confirm that Ussher knew about the Assembly debates. This greater likelihood also intensifies the argument that Ussher responded to Gataker at the Assembly, thereby indirectly contributing to its proceedings. Snoddy’s analysis of the timing and significance of Ussher’s sermons, however, does need to be altered. Ussher’s response to the Assembly debates shows how attuned the Oxford sermons were to the political and theological moment in which they were preached. Gataker argued at the Assembly that when the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature, that nature came with the obligation to fulfill the law. In essence, the human nature owes obedience Standards: A Historical Investigation,” in K. Scott Oliphint (ed.), Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2007), 99–​130.

93 Ford, Ussher, 261.

94 Daniel Featley, Sacra Nemesis (Oxford, 1644), 12–​13, 20–​48. 95 Ford, Ussher, 269.

Salvation  237 to God, and now that the Son of God has a human nature, he must keep the law for his own sake. This means his acts of obedience that positively fulfill the law cannot be vicarious. Gataker thought this excluded the possibility of Christ’s active obedience being imputed to believers for justification.96 Charles Herle (1598–​1659) responded on the Assembly floor that “when the humane nature was assumed it was not deifyed. But the obligation is not betwixt God and a nature, but God & a person. The person in which this human nature lyes is not a creature.”97 According to Herle, it is not a nature that is obligated to God but the person who lives in a nature. Since the person dwelling in the Incarnation is not a human person but a divine person, he did not owe obedience for his own person, and could therefore offer it vicariously. Herle and Peter Smith (1586–​ 1653) thought the arguments against them contained hints of Socinianism.98 Francis Woodcock (1614–​ 1649/​ 51), another Westminster divine, further argued, “If the whole obedience of Christ be imputed as my obedience, then ther is noe place left for pardon of sin.”99 These remarks show that debate about the nature and content of imputation in connection to the doctrine of justification was a live issue at the Westminster Assembly. There are further reasons to think that Ussher’s sermons on imputation were his indirect address to the Westminster Assembly debates. Woodcock’s remarks are remarkably similar to Ussher’s concerns in the Oxford sermons he preached at roughly the same time as these debates raged in London. Ussher, like Woodcock, recognized the comprehensive implication of the doctrine of imputation and argued that imputation constituted the full act of justification.100 Still, Ussher took Christ’s active obedience to the law as the more foundational ground for his passive obedience. He argued, “The merit of his passive obedience ariseth from a mixture with his active.”101 Speaking of the relationship between imputed righteousness and the forgiveness of sin, Ussher preached, “But here remember I deny not the imputation of righteousnesse; for that is the foundation of the other.”102 This emphasis on imputation matched what he taught in other sermons as well: “He was to deale with two Attributes of God, His Justice and His mercy: for His Justice, He was to make Satisfaction for a double Dett, obedience, And in Penalty

96

MPWA 2:54–​5 (session 47, on September 6, 1643). MPWA 2:55 (session 47, on September 6, 1643). 98 MPWA 2:56 (session 47, on September 6, 1643); cf. Snoddy, Soteriology, 109–​10. 99 MPWA 2:54 (session 47, on September 6, 1643). 100 Snoddy, Soteriology, 106–​13. 101 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 372 (sermon on Philippians 2:8). 102 Ussher, Choice Sermons, 401 (sermon on Romans 5:1). 97

238  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works for default:  w[hi]ch satisfaction was made By his Active and Passive obedience.”103 In this quote, the establishment of Christ’s active and passive obedience related to God’s justice, which elsewhere was shown to link to Ussher’s intellectualist principles of natural law. Further, there was a double debt of fulfilling the law and satisfying the penalty of breaking it, which was shown in Chapter 5 to relate to Ussher’s doctrine of Christological recapitulation, which was in turn shown to have extensive links to his doctrine of the covenant of works. As Ussher taught that Christ’s priestly role entailed earning perfect righteousness and offering satisfaction, which was linked to requirements of the covenant of works, so he connected the believer’s justification to Christ’s priestly work and explicitly connected this with the doctrine of imputation. In a sermon at Lincoln’s Inn on July 30, 1648, he argued that the imputation of Christ’s passive obedience—​that is, his suffering the curse of the law that culminated in the crucifixion—​takes away the guilt of sin.104 Ussher then linked all this discussion of imputation to the themes of the covenant of works by arguing that justification frees a person from the condemnation and curse of the law. As Chapters 2 and 3 showed, Ussher leaned heavily on exegesis of Galatians 3:10–​12 and Romans 10 to formulate his doctrine of the covenant of works. He cited Galatians 3:10 in a sermon on soteriology to show what condemnation justification frees believers from.105 These considerations of Ussher’s emphases on the doctrine of imputation show how clearly he prioritized that as the basis of justification. He thought this was a profoundly important topic for theologians of his time to remember as they battled Arminianism and crafted confessions of faith.106 It is fitting to close this section by turning back to the links Ussher forged between the doctrine of justification and the doctrine of the covenant of works. The previous chapters in this study have highlighted various themes that ran through Ussher’s covenant of works, like the requirements of the natural law, the demand for perfect obedience, the imputation of Adam’s sin to the rest of humanity as its federal representative, and Christ’s recapitulation of Adam’s covenantal headship as the one who would offer truly perfect obedience. It should be clear from this section how all those themes culminate in Ussher’s thoroughly forensic doctrine of justification. His view of justification was entirely based on the premises of imputation, which was possible

103

CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 62r (sermon on Deuteronomy 18:15, dated February 27, 1647 [1648]). CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 84v–​85r (sermon on Romans 3:24–​25, dated July 30, 1648). 105 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 90v (sermon on Romans 6:14–​15, dated September 3, 1648). 106 Snoddy, Soteriology, 113–​22. 104

Salvation  239 only because God had dealt with humanity under covenantal auspices, first with the original Adam, then with the second and faithful Adam, Jesus Christ. In Ussher’s theology, the covenant of works provided the mechanism of covenantal headship, which was the foundation of imputation, making it possible and even necessary for God to deal with people through a federal representative. As Ussher wrote in 1653: Q. What was required of Christ for making peace and reconciliation betwixt God and man? A. That he should satisfie the first Covenant whereunto man was tyed. Q. Wherein was Christ to make satisfaction to the first Covenant? A. In performing that righteousnesse which the Law of God require of Man: and in bearing the punishment which was due unto Man for breaking the same Law.107

Ussher made the connections between imputation and the covenant of works most elaborately clear in his 1643–​44 lectures in Oxford, where, as discussed in Chapter 4, he argued that covenants govern a person’s eternal condition. He went on to explain: This is called a covenant because God commands certain conditions to every person. Moreover, a covenant of this sort is given to one person, as a mediator for the rest, and to a public person for the sake of himself and the rest of humanity according to the method of the Mediator and the others.108

Ussher here used the notion of covenant to establish the principle of imputation, and he described how eternal destinies for every person are determined by the “public person,” the federal representative, of the covenant. Further, he said the two parts of a covenant are “the Command and the Payment.” “A precept,” he wrote, “according to its method, is that those who would obey are justified and acquitted.”109 This further establishes the link between the covenant of works as the foundational principle of being justified, as Chapter 2 discussed. He continued: 107 Ussher, Principles (1653), 19–​20. 108 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 35v (Foedus hic d[icitu]r, quod Deus omnibus hominibus certis conditionibus imperat. Ejusmodi vero foedus traditur uni homini ut caeteroru[m]‌mediatori et p[er]sonae com[m]uni pro seipse et caeteris hominibus pro ra[ti]one Mediatoris et aliorum). 109 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 35v (Praeceptu[m]‌pro cujus ra[ti]one qui paruerint iustificantur et absolvunt[u]r).

240  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works There are two kinds of covenants, namely, law and gospel. First, the Law is the covenant given to Adam. Concerning its command, he had been commanded so that righteous men might be specially righteous. The law is that which they were initially instructed by the help of nature and creation, and the blessings they received made them fit to render all that must rendered. This is called the righteousness of works.110

The law covenant taught—​by virtue of the knowledge Adam had by creation, which clearly concerned the natural law—​that keeping the law warranted blessings, also known as the righteousness of works. There is no need to rehearse how Ussher thought Adam could earn the eternal state for humanity, but the passages quoted here show how Ussher established the principles of justification based on imputed righteousness in the covenant of works. As he lectured, “The next result of the first covenant is about the law. Death entered by consequence of the covenant, both into this age and the one to come. Concerning this covenantal premise, likewise, spiritual life would have entered.”111 Interestingly, when Ussher then lectured on the gospel covenant, he had no explicit section on justification, but instead a lengthy discussion about different “methods” of inheriting eternal life. In the gospel method, Christ has taken on the role of fulfilling what Adam should have done in the covenant of works, and a person can inherit eternal life by trusting in Christ, which then makes Christ that person’s federal representative instead of Adam. The parts of the office of Christ in the parts of the Evangelical covenant, where they occur, may be observed from the earlier part of the Evangelical covenant when there is the commandment of righteousness, so that he satisfies the covenant of law, and thus the law is established by the Gospel. This satisfaction has two reasons. First, concerning Christ. Second, concerning the rest of humanity. First, the method concerning Christ has two parts. First, it is in order that Christ fulfills the covenant of law for the rest of

110 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol.36r (Foedera ejusmodi sunt duae viz.: lex et evangeliu[m]‌ 1.  Lex est foedus traditur Adamo. Ejus mandati praeceptum erat, ut ho[min]es iusti essent iustitiâ propriâ. Ea est quâ naturae et creationis beneficio imbueba[n]tur et ad qua[m] p[rae]standam donis ita acceptis facti erant idonei. Ea operum iustitia dicitur). 111 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 37v (Quod secundu[m]‌eventu[m] est legis. Mors ingressa p[er] rat[ti]one foederis et hujus saeculi et futuri. Hujus ite[m] cujusmodi vitae spiritualis).

Salvation  241 humanity.112 There are two parts of this sort of satisfaction. First, expiation so that he endures the penalty of the violated law, and this partly refers to the priest who offers expiation.113 Second, obedience by which he renders the righteousness commanded by the legal precept. The second part of the satisfaction in the method concerning Christ is that he offers the satisfaction he rendered for the rest of humanity, who participate in it by the counsel of God.”114

Earlier Ussher had raised the issue of justification under the terms of the covenant of works, and here Christ fulfills the requirements of the covenant of law in his role as mediator of the gospel covenant. In this passage, Ussher clearly described how the evangelical covenant provides a “method concerning Christ,” contrasting with the method of the covenant of law, wherein Christ wholly fulfilled the covenant of works as the new Adam. People can benefit from Christ’s covenantal representation by having faith in him: The internal method is that by which the Gospel covenant is communicated. This method of communicating is twofold. One is instrumental, the other is absolute and free. First, the instrumental aspect is that by which 112 “Q. What was required of Christ for making peace and reconciliation betwixt God and man? A. That he should satisfie the first Covenant whereunto man was tyed.” Ussher, Principles (1653), 19, citing Romans 8:3–​4; 10:4; Galatians 4:4–​5. 113 Regarding the language of “satisfaction” in connection to the death of Christ, see Richard A. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 74–​78. The English cognate “expiation” has too much conative baggage from dogmatic discussions to be an ideal translation for expiatio, but there is no better choice in this case. Expiatio could be translated as “satisfaction,” but since expiatio is a distinction made within satisfactio, it is best to preserve the distinction linguistically and not translate both as “satisfaction.” “Atonement” was not really the terminology consistently used in the early modern period to discuss Christ’s death, despite its early modern etymological origins. Ussher consistently spoke of Christ’s work in terms of satisfaction. Ussher, Principles (1653), 87–​88: “Q. What are the parts of his Priestly office? A. The satisfaction of God’s justice, and his intercession. Q. What is required of Christ for the satisfaction of Gods justice? A. The paying of the price which was due for the breach of the Law committed by mankind; and the performance of that righteousnesse, which man by the Law was bound unto, but is now unable to accomplish.” This is unchanged from the original edition of this catechism, Ussher, Principles (1645), 78–​79. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 170–​71, “Of Christs Satisfaction.” This also appears in CUL MS Mm. 6.55, fol. 45r (sermon on Philippians 2:5–​8, dated November 6, 1642). 114 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 38v (Officii [Chris]ti partes in Evangelici foederis p[ar] tibus ubi occurrunt obserbent[u]‌r prioris partis Evangelici foederis mandatum iustitiae est, ut foederi legis satisfaciat ita lex Evangelio stabiliatur. Satisfactio haec ra[ti]onem habet 2e[m] 1o [Chris]ti. 2o caeteror[um] hominum. 1o ra[ti]one [Chris]ti partes duas habet:  1a est ut [Chris]tus p[ro] caeteris hominibus foederi legis satisfaciat. Satisfactionis ejus p[ar]tes duae s[un]t. 1a expiatio ut poenam legis violatae perferat atque hac in parte sacerdotem expiantem refert. 2a obedientia qua legis praeceptis mandatam iustitiam praestat. 2a pars satisfactionis ra[ti]one [Chris]ti est ut satisfactione[m] ab ipso praestitam caet[e]ris ho[mn]ibus com[m]unicandi ex Dei consilio offerat).

242  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works faith is effected. Faith is that by which someone is entrusted to Christ. By faith in Christ they become partakers also conjoined with every good gift of Christ, and these gifts arise from the Gospel covenant, so then, it follows people are justified by faith alone. Likewise, eternal life is obtained by faith alone, and eternal life, which properly, it certainly must be attributed to Christ alone, but improperly attributed to faith, because they, as it were, by a certain instrument are united with and engrafted into Christ. Second, the absolute and free aspect is that which occurs either by the ordinary methods of faith and gospel ministry, or outside those methods in those who do not have the capacity for faith and ministry.115

Ussher held, in very standard Reformed fashion, that faith is the instrument linking a person to Christ and allowing the person to receive all of the blessings that Christ earned in his role as mediator. Justification comes when a person is joined by faith to the second Adam, who attained works righteousness. According to Ussher, in other words, the evangelical covenant is a legal covenant for Christ but a gospel covenant for believers, and this point ties together Ussher’s major emphases on the covenant of works throughout his career and the necessity of imputation for the doctrine of justification.

The Covenant of Works and Sanctification The doctrine of sanctification filled numerous pages in the auditor’s notes of Ussher’s sermons, as he preached on it for nearly two years at Lincoln’s Inn, which shows that it was clearly of great importance to Ussher, and could itself occupy an entire monograph. This study, however, focuses on the narrow aspect of Ussher’s understanding of sanctification in its intersection with the covenant of works. Before moving to the direct intersection between the covenant of works and sanctification, three noteworthy points tie the doctrine of sanctification

115 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 40r (Int[e]‌rna est qua foed[u]s Evangelio com[m] unicatur. Haec com[m]unicandi ra[ti]o duplex est. una instrum[en]talis altera absoluta et libera. 1. Instrumentalis est qua fides efficitur. Fides est qua in [Chris]tum creditur. Fide in [Chris]to coniunto o[mn]ium bonorum donorumque [Chris]ti. quae ex Evangelico foedere oriuntur p[ar]ticipes fiunt hinc sequitur fide solâ ho[min]es iustificari. Item fide sola obtineri vita[m] aeternam quae p[ro]prie quidem [Chris]tō soli tribuenda [e]st, sed fidei tribuunt[u]r p[ro]pterea quod ea quasi instrumento quodam [Chris]to conjunguntur et inserunter. 2. Absoluta et Libera est, quae vel fit ordinariâ ra[ti]one fidei et ministerii evangelici vel extra ordine[m] in iis qui fidei et ministerii non sunt capaces).

Salvation  243 into themes already discussed in this chapter. The first is how clearly Ussher differentiated justification from sanctification: “Justification brings thee to the Gallowes: but Sanctification makes thee a good man. Justification Is An Act without us: Sanctification is an Act within us.”116 Further, according to Ussher, “The matter of Justification is done in an Instant: that of Sanctification is not done Instantly: the Seeds indeede of Sanctification are Infused in an Instant, but those Seeds grow and Increase daily: that of Sanctification takes up the whole course of a man life.”117 Ussher also outlined the contrasts between a person’s relationship to the law in A Body of Divinitie: How is the Gospel a rule of obedience being the rule of faith? As the Law requireth obedience, Jame. 12.1 [sic] so the Gospel directeth the faithful how to perform it, 1 Tim. 1.9, 10, 11. Only with difference, Of the manner; the Law propounding God to be worshipped of us in himselfe as our Creator, the Gospel in Christ as our Saviour. Of the end; The Law requiring all duties, as for the procurement of our own salvation: The Gospel in way of thankfulnesse, for salvation in Christ already bestowed, I Thess. 5.18. Of the effect; the Law (like Pharaoh, that required brick, but allowed no straw) demanding obedience, but vouchsafing no assistance; (supposing man as in the state of Creation) The Gospel both offering and conferring to the regenerate that which it requireth, Rom. 10. 5, 6. 8. for it both requireth and confirmeth faith unto the Elect, and that not only as a hand to lay hold on Christ, but also as a chief vertue working by love in all parts of obedience; without which even the Gospel is a Law, that is, a killing letter, 2 Cor. 3.6. to the unregenerate, and with which the Law becommeth as it were Gospel to the regenerate, even a law of liberty, Jam. 1.25. & 2.12. For as the Law saveth us not without the Gospel, so the Gospel saveth us not without the Law.118

The second thing to note is that Ussher also tied the doctrine of sanctification into his discussion of predestination, clarifying that a person is not simply elected to eternal life but is elected to personal holiness during the life of faith as well:



116

CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 91r (sermon on Romans 6:14–​15, dated September 3, 1648). CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 91v (sermon on 1 Thessalonians 4:3, dated September 10, 1648). 118 Ussher, Body, 203. 117

244  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works What had God in his minde In the Predestination of mee? 8 Rom. 29. Those w[hi]ch he knew before He also Predestinate, to bee made like to the Image of his Sonne:  made Conformable to His Sonne:  Hee beinge a Beautifull Head must not have a foule Body. 1. Ephes. 4. As He hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world, that wee should bee Holy, and without blame before him in Love. If I bee Predestinate says one, I neede not care: I may live as I list. Thou art a foole: Predestination implyes Holines:119

This quote shows that Ussher was thoroughly concerned with believers’ personal holiness even as he affirmed God’s grace and maintained God’s sovereignty in salvation apart from works. The third point to note needs more explanation. Ussher taught that the process of sanctification was enabled only upon the foundation of justification, which shows that Ussher affirmed a specific ordered relationship between justification and sanctification.120 He wrote: How doth sanctification differ from the former grace of Justification? In many main and material differences; as, I. In the order, not of time, wherein they goe together, Rom. 8.30. nor of knowledge and apprehension, wherein this latter hath precedency, I Cor. 6.11. but of nature, wherein the former is the ground of this latter, 2 Cor. 7.1.121

So justification was “the chiefe of those Benefits” that initiated someone into the other benefits of the evangelical covenant.122 Once someone was justified, that person had peace with God and became a friend of God.123 “After Justification then comes the Righteousness of Sanctification, to doe Righteousnes,” Ussher wrote. “Hee that has healed mee, does not meane that I should sinne afresh. I am not under the Law In the point of Sanctification.”124 The fruits of justification rested on the completed work of Christ and were applied through his heavenly intercession. Ussher thought that this foundation

119 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 91v (sermon on 1 Thessalonians 4:3, dated September 10, 1648). 120 Thanks to the anonymous OUP reviewer who flagged the need to treat this issue at length. 121 Ussher, Body, 202. 122 CUL MS Mm. 6.55, fol. 84v (sermon on Romans 3:24–​25, dated July 30, 1648); Ussher, Choice Sermons, 382 (sermon on Romans 5:1), 404 (sermon on Romans 5:1), Ussher, Principles (1653),  22–​23. 123 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 88r–​90r (two sermons on John 15:15, dated August 20 and August 27, 1648); Ussher, Choice Sermons, 425–​44 (sermon on Romans 5:1). 124 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 90v (sermon on Romans 6:14–​15, dated September 3, 1648).

Salvation  245 of intercession was a prerequisite for believers to be sanctified because God could not accept their good works unless they were first justified.125 1. A man must bee a Justified man, before hee can doe a Good worke: for before, God and wee are Adversaries, and Christ makes our Peace . . . 2. The Grace of Sanctification, that new Creation Is an Ability given to us, whereby wee are inabled to do Good. of ourselves wee are not sufficient to thinke anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God . . . 3. wee must bee Partakers of Christs Intercession: for By his Intercession our works are accepted, as well as our Persons. Though the worke bee done By the Principle of the Spirit, yet there is flesh in mee, that casts filth upon the worke, and defiles It:  And this pollution must be taken away By the Intercession of Christ.126

According to Ussher, once the definitive act of justification has occurred, sanctification can begin and God can approve of good works in the justified person: “As Christ justifies the Person, So, by his merits He justifies thy worke.”127 In a sermon emphasizing sanctification’s necessity, Ussher said, “I grant Justification doth lead [th]e waye, but Sanctification must bee ioyned and followes after. The must goe together. If the one followes not, the other is but a false ymagination.” Ussher certainly spoke of sanctification’s necessity and held that it must come with justification. This point is not problematic or surprising, but he did explicitly state in multiple ways that justification has priority to sanctification: justification “doth lead the waye” and sanctification “followes after.”128 Ussher’s statements clearly show how he saw a particular and necessary order of the benefits of salvation within the ordo salutis. Snoddy did argue that for Ussher, “justification is thus not considered primarily as one sequential step in an ordo salutis, but rather as one of a number of benefits communicated through union with the exalted Christ.”129 Snoddy, however, was imprecise in assuming that union with Christ as a simultaneous conferring of benefits was incompatible with an ordered arrangement of those benefits. He presumed an “apparent contradiction” in ordering justification before sanctification and yet always joining them.130

125

CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 114r (sermon on 1 Peter 5:5, dated March 11, 1648). CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 151v–​152r (sermon on Ephesians 2:10, dated January 6, 1649 [1650]). 127 CUL MS Mm. 6.55, fol. 90r (sermon on Romans 6:14, dated August 27, 1648). 128 Balliol MS 259, II fol. 288v (undated sermon on 1 John 3:9). 129 Snoddy, Soteriology, 127. 130 Snoddy, Soteriology, 153. 126

246  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Other scholarship, however, has demonstrated that early modern Reformed theologians often articulated an arrangement of Christ’s benefits in which sanctification logically—​not temporally—​depended upon justification, and that these theologians articulated this ordering within a framework of union with Christ.131 Ussher’s prioritizing justification to sanctification did not indicate a temporal separation between these benefits—​Snoddy correctly argued that Ussher thought that they come simultaneously—​but that does not exclude a specific ordered relationship between them within union with Christ, and Snoddy leaned on literature concerning Calvin that has been sharply criticized on this point.132 Richard Muller critiqued this literature’s claim that writers after Calvin distorted union with Christ “by associating it with the order of salvation or with the categories of federal theology,” and Muller even went so far as to say “it is not historiography at all” and “has little to do with the Reformation or the Reformed tradition.”133 Ussher could not have been more clear that “sanctification is an effect, floweing properly fro[m]‌our Justification.”134 The evidence here, although not denying that Ussher situated his applied soteriology within union with Christ, as Snoddy argued, shows that Ussher did clearly affirm an ordered relationship between justification and sanctification. As we will see, Ussher taught that the source and guide of sanctification are rooted in covenantal principles, both with connections to the covenant of works. In regard to the source of sanctification, Ussher made a parallel between how Adam became the source of corrupt human nature, original sin, and actual sins as the failed covenantal representative and how Christ became the source of healed human nature, new creation, and actual righteousness as the faithful covenantal representative. He preached, “Then for the Fruites of Sanctification, there is a Double Inherent Righteousnes, Habitual, and Actual. As By the First Adam came original, and Actual Sinne; So by the Life of the Second Adam, wee are restored to Habitual and Actual Righteousnes.”135 This point is straightforward enough: the covenantal representative to which a person was joined was the root from which would grow good or bad fruit

131 Richard Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 161–​244; J. V. Fesko, Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ in Early Modern Reformed Theology (1517–​1700) (V&R, 2012), 34–​121; J. V. Fesko, “Romans 8.29–​30 and the Question of the Ordo Salutis,” Journal of Reformed Theology 8 (2014): 35–​60. 132 Snoddy, Soteriology, 122–​27, esp. 122 n. 121. 133 Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition, 39. 134 Balliol MS 259, II fol. 365r (undated sermons in 1 John 5:8). 135 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 135r (sermon on 2 Corinthians 10:5, dated September 30, 1649).

Salvation  247 in that person’s life.136 The transfer of a person from Adam’s representation to Christ’s enabled and fueled a life of increasing godliness. The source of sanctification, therefore, was bound to the foundations of God’s covenant relationship to humanity. The other, much more involved connection Ussher made between sanctification and the covenant of works was the standard that directed the practice of the sanctified life. Ussher wrote in 1653: Q. What is the direction of that Obedience which God requireth of Man? A. The morall Law: whereof the ten Commandements are an abridgement.137

Ussher said the moral law (summarized by the Decalogue) is the guide to the sanctified life, but, as Chapters 2 and 3 explored at length, he also linked the Decalogue to the natural law as the terms of the covenant of works. Ussher described this relationship between the natural law and the Decalogue to explain how the law could be given to Adam but was first written at Mount Sinai: How was this Law given unto Adam in the beginning? It was chiefly written in his heart at his creation, and partly also uttered in his eare in Paradise; for unto him was given a will both to good and also to evill, and also to be inclined thereto with ability to perform it. There was something likewise outwardly revealed, as his duty to God in the sanctification of the Sabbath, to his neighbor in the institution of marriage, and to himselfe in his dayly working about the garden. How hath the Morall Law been delivered since the fall? The summe thereof was comprised in ten words, Exod. 34.28. Deut. 4.13. commonly called the Decalogue or ten Commandements, solemnly published and engraved in tables of stone by God himselfe, Deut. 10.4. Afterwards the same was more fully delivered in the books of holy Scripture, and so committed to the Church for all ages, as the Royall Law for direction of obedience to God our King; Jam. 2.8. and for the discovery of sin and punishment due thereto. Deut. 27.26. Rom. 1.31. & 3.20.138



136

CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 151v (sermon on Ephesians 2:10, dated January 6, 1649 [1650]).

137 Ussher, Principles, 103. 138 Ussher, Body, 124.

248  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works Ussher’s intellectualist view of the unchanging natural law entailed that its standards would always remain abiding duties for humanity, even if pursuing those duties cannot earn entitlement to heaven after Adam broke the covenant of works. Ussher spelled out the differences between how the law functioned for a person who was still under the covenant of works and one who was under the evangelical covenant: How doth this Covenant differ from that of works? Much in every way; for, first, in many points the Law may be conceived by reason; but the Gospell in all points is farre above the reach of mans reason. Secondly, the Law commandeth to doe good, and giveth no strength, but the Gospell enableth us to doe good, the Holy Ghost writing the Law in our hearts; Jer. 31.33. and assuring us of the promise the revealeth this gift. Thirdly, the Law promised life onely; the Gospell righteousnesse also. Fourthly, the Law required perfect obedience, the Gospell the righteousnesse of Faith. Rom. 3.21. Fifthly, the Law revealeth sin, rebuketh us for it, and leaveth us in it: but the Gospell doth reveale unto us the remission of sins, and freeth us from the punishment belonging thereunto. Sixthly, the Law is the ministry of wrath, condemnation, and death:  the Gospell is the ministery of grace, Justification and life. Seventhly, the Law was grounded on mans own righteousnesse, requiring of every man in his own person perfect obedience; Deut. 27.26. and in default for satisfaction everlasting punishment, Ezek. 18.14. Gal. 3.10.12. but the Gospell is grounded on the righteousnesse of Christ, admitting payment and performance by another in behalf of so many as receive it, Gal. 3.13, 14. And thus this Covenant abolisheth not, but is the accomplishment of the former, Rom. 3.31. 10.4.139

Ussher’s point was that the same law that was built into creation through natural law as the foundation of the covenant of works also had a function within the evangelical covenant to direct believers in the way they should live a life of gratitude to God, who had saved them. The clearest way to see how Ussher used the standard of the covenant of works to structure the requirements of the Christian life is how he located his discussion of the Decalogue both under the covenant of works and under the doctrine of sanctification. Typically, Ussher explained each of the

139 Ussher, Body, 159.

Salvation  249 Ten Commandments under the heading of sanctification.140 In A Body of Divinitie, he referred to them as “the rule and square of our Sanctification.”141 He explained this placement of the Decalogue as an effect of the Spirit renewing the believer’s desire to keep the law: “Obedience caused by [the gift of God] increases the eager concern for worshipping God through the entire life according to that measure of the ability that he will establish in us. The norm of this obedience, moreover, is the moral law, of which the Decalogue is the summary.”142 In contrast to this normal placement, however, in his 1643–​ 44 lectures in Oxford Ussher discussed the Ten Commandments under the heading of the legal covenant: First, the Law is the covenant given to Adam. Concerning its command, he had been commanded so that righteous men might be specially righteous. The law is that which they were initially instructed by the help of nature and creation, and the blessings they received made them fit to render all that must rendered. This is called the righteousness of works. This righteousness is seen to have been outlined and illustrated in Paradise by the symbol of the tree of life, and later as well, the same law was explained by being attached in the Decalogue. Its individual parts are called virtues. A virtue is that which happens according to the law of the Decalogue. There are two parts of its particular righteousness. The first is that which is contained in the first table of the Decalogue.143

In this passage (and in the section following), Ussher directly connected the Decalogue to the covenant of works. The law given to Adam was the standard of works righteousness. This law, which was taught to Adam through “nature and creation,” indicating that it was the natural law, was later attached to the Decalogue. This, of course, reaffirms that Ussher taught that the Mosaic covenant was in some way a republication of the covenant of

140 TCD MS 287, fol. 103v–​104r; Ussher, Principles (1653), 25–​37; Ussher, Body, 204–​331. 141 Ussher, Body, 331. 142 TCD MS 287 fol. 104r (Obedientia hinc orta est studio[m]‌sollićitu[m] dei per tota[m] vita[m] colendi, sećundum mensura[m] illam facultatis, quâ nos. stabiliet. Norma verò hujus obedientiae, e[st] lex moralis, cuj[us] Decalog[us] e[st] epitome). 143 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, fol. 36r (Lex est foedus traditur Adamo. Ejus mandati praeceptum erat, ut ho[min]es iusti essent iustitiâ propriâ. Ea est quâ naturae et creationis beneficio imbueba[n]‌tur et ad qua[m] p[rae]standam donis ita acceptis facti erant idonei. Ea operum iustitia dicitur. Haec iustitia in Paradise videtur symbolo arboris vitae adumbrata et illustrata fuisse, postea vero eadem Decalogo apti explicata est. Ejus singulae partes dicuntur virtutes. Virtus est, quae fit ex lege Decalogi. Justitiae hujus partes praecipuae sunt duae, 1a est quae primâ Decalogi tabula continetur).

250  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works works, as argued in Chapter 3, since the same law defined both covenants. The fact that Ussher could just as easily discuss the principles and duties of the Decalogue under the covenant of works as under the doctrine of sanctification shows how one aspect of the covenant of works formed the standard of sanctification.

Conclusion Ussher thought about aspects of soteriology in light of the doctrinal foundations from the covenant of works, using it to structure Reformed views on conversion, justification, and sanctification. Ussher taught divinity students to impress the demands of the covenant of works on their congregations before they offered the gospel promises, so that people would despair in their sin and rejoice to receive the gospel. He built his doctrine of justification entirely on the premise of imputation, which owes its foundation to the covenantal principles God established with Adam. He also brought the notion of the unchangeable natural law, built into his intellectualist version of the covenant of works, to direct the process of growth in the Christian life, and so indirectly used the covenant of works to inform his doctrine of sanctification. This covenantal structure of Ussher’s soteriology starkly contrasted with the Laudian style, and this contrast is worth more analysis here. The differences between Laudians and puritans have occupied a vast amount of secondary literature, and we cannot venture deeply into it here. Instead, the focus must remain on what the analysis of the intersection of Ussher’s doctrine of the covenant of works and his doctrines of salvation might add to our understanding of those differences. Peter Lake successfully moved past distinguishing Laudians and puritans according to their view of predestination, demonstrating that the concern for uniformity of the beauty of holiness in the practices of the church was a common theme of Laudianism. Indeed, the sacraments became “the prime source of a potentially saving grace, offered first in baptism and then in the eucharist to all members of the visible church [which] implied a view of the theology of grace very different from the absolute predestinarianism which passed for orthodox among many educated English protestants.”144 Nicholas Tyacke was correct to put religious issues

144

Lake, “Laudian Style,” 174.

Salvation  251 back into the discussion about causes of the English civil war, but Lake was also right to advance this further than the doctrine of predestination.145 Tyacke, Lake, and much of the scholarship on the Laudian-​puritan divide, however, have perhaps overlooked some undergirding principles that could partially explain the separation between these groups, and those principles relate to covenant theology. Covenant theology may help explain the Laudian-​puritan divide by shedding new light on their different notions of religious life. Tyacke and David Como focused on the differing understandings of God’s sovereignty in grace.146 Incorporating further insights, other studies have shown a puritan preference for conferences and meetings for discussion outside liturgical worship.147 In contrast, Lake showed that Laudian policy aimed to eradicate precisely that sort of practice so to recentralize sacredness under clerical authority and literally within church walls.148 The differences addressed by Tyacke, Como, Lake, and Tom Webster are certainly all legitimate, but Ussher’s covenant theology indicates that we can refer to something that is more specific and more principled than just differing understandings of sovereign grace or contrasting views of the extent of holiness. Ussher’s covenant theology points to different foundations of soteriology. Ussher’s covenantally grounded soteriology included a definitive and legal change from the status of condemned to the status of justified, which centered on an internal conversion from unbelief to faith. On the other hand, Laudian soteriology posited ongoing participation in the external trappings of religion as the process of salvation. As shown earlier, Laud gave some credence to Bellarmine’s arguments for non-​imputative justification.149 The differences between the definitive and the legal and between the continual and participatory bases of salvation markedly separate the very principles of salvation at work in Reformed and Laudian schemes. Whereas Ussher emphasized that “justification has no degrees,” Laud taught that justification could be lost and regained.150 This difference points beyond simple 145 Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists:  The Rise of English Arminianism c.  1590–​1640 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 181–​244; Lake, “Laudian Style,” 161–​64, 183–​85. 146 Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, 181–​244; David R. Como, “Predestination and Political Conflict in Laud’s London,” HJ 46, no. 2 (2003): 263–​94. 147 Tom Webster, Godly Clergy in Early Stuart England: The Caroline Puritan Movement, c. 1620–​ 1643 (Cambridge: CUP, 1997), 9–​92. 148 Lake, “Laudian Style,” 164–​68, 174–​82. 149 LW 6.2:695. 150 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 91r (sermon on Romans 6:14–​15, dated September 3, 1648); Cromartie, “The Mind of William Laud,” 92.

252  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works debates about the nature of God’s sovereignty in conversion and perseverance to underlying differences about the functional bases of soteriology. The disagreements between Reformed and Laudian theologians are not superficially about the biblical and reasonable warrant for the doctrine of predestination but rather involve divergent views about how God relates to humanity and to believers individually. The difference was between a forensic understanding of that saving relationship and a participatory one. This observation opens the way for further studies of early modern religion and the discussion about how to classify Laudians and puritans and the theological spectrum that surrounds them. Further, it also points to important ways in which such an observation is relevant for historiography of the later Anglican tradition. Most pointedly, the differences between Ussher’s soteriology and the Laudians’—​which were built on opposing foundational premises (covenantal versus participatory)—​indicate something about the nature of the Anglican heritage. Both Ussher and Laud held the highest archbishoprics in the Irish and English communions, so it can hardly be said that either of them had secretly infiltrated an Anglican consensus while holding idiosyncratic views. Although Ussher’s views held confessional status in the Irish Articles (1615), which had incorporated nearly all of England’s Thirty-​Nine Articles, the Laudian style’s distinctive features were never enshrined in a Protestant confession. These observations indicate that the Anglo-​Catholicism that developed later within Anglicanism cannot claim to be the sole legitimate heir of the established church. Further, Ussher’s work makes it more than clear that Reformed theology was not smuggled into Anglicanism and kept quiet beneath the ceremonial framework. As this chapter demonstrated, Ussher placed a high value on the sacraments, and he also was committed to the practices of the Book of Common Prayer. The problem in the early modern era, therefore, was not ceremony and ritual per se but an exaltation of the ceremonial over the preaching of God’s Word and explanation of its doctrine. Historians of Reformed theology should not assume that the Anglo-​Catholic tradition that developed out of the Oxford movement is the default or true Anglicanism. Rigorous Reformed theology, even combined with a love for traditional practices of the established church, also has a claim—​perhaps a greater one—​to the Anglican heritage. Ussher used the covenant of works to inform his understanding of how to preach the law and gospel, how conversion works, the essentialness of imputation for the doctrine of justification, and the source and content of sanctification. His conceptions of these doctrines conflicted with the Laudian style,

Salvation  253 shedding light on some of the disputes and divisions within early modern religion and even informing us about the long history of the Anglican tradition. All of these points are made apparent in how James Ussher used the covenant of works to undergird and explain his understanding of the doctrines of salvation.

Conclusion This study has demonstrated that Ussher used the covenant of works as a means to structure and integrate the particulars of his theological system. Taking a lead from Richard Muller’s admonition that scholars should develop a better understanding of the covenant of works’ historical origins and theological contents by determining its theological antecedents, this book argued that Ussher built his formulation of the covenant of works from ecumenical ideas from the Christian tradition, such as Adam’s representative role, the natural law, the eschatological nature of humanity as God’s image, the historical execution of God’s sovereign and eternal decree, and Christ’s recapitulation of Adam’s task.1 Further, Ussher also deployed the covenant of works to support the Reformed doctrines of salvation and to refute Roman Catholic theology, especially as it touched those doctrines that he had bound together in this covenant. Each chapter showed that Ussher was unoriginal in some ways, but in other ways significantly helped codify Reformed covenant theology. They also showed that the covenant motif remained a stable and unchanging aspect of his theology throughout his entire life. Throughout this book, the covenant of works has played a pivotal role in showing how covenant theology was an integration of catholic ideas. Ussher engaged long-​standing Christian doctrines and reworked aspects of those doctrines to be more consistent with thoroughgoing Protestantism by using the covenant of works. Some elements of this doctrine go back at least to Thomas Aquinas, and some go as far back as Irenaeus or Tertullian. In each case, Ussher reformulated those ideas in covenantal terms to bring new consistency and integration across doctrines. Further, Ussher tuned his theology in light of the Irish context, and close attention to that context adds insight into some of his expression. Specifically, whereas English theologians spoke more about Adam originally needing grace, Ussher emphasized the strength of Adam’s nature. Ussher did not create covenant theology, but neither did he 1 Richard A. Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in Seventeenth-​ Century Reformed Orthodoxy: A Study in the Theology of Herman Witsius and Wilhemus à Brakel,” in After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (New York: OUP, 2003), 176. Catholicity and the Covenant of Works. Harrison Perkins, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197514184.001.0001

Conclusion  255 repeat any one version taught by his mentors. His formulations differed from his predecessors’, containing both slight adjustments and major structural shifts. This book has paid attention to authors and works that Ussher cited as his sources in order to track a demonstrable pattern of transmission and reconceptualization of doctrine. Because Ussher mentioned Thomas Cartwright, William Perkins, and Robert Rollock as crucially important influences on his thinking or upon specific writings, they took priority as analytical points of contrast to his theology.2 Although these figures clearly marked his thinking, he also felt free to modify their ideas. For example, Perkins wrote about the covenant of works as something built into the Mosaic covenant that ran parallel to the covenant of grace. He did not speak consistently of a covenant with Adam and did not correlate Adam’s condition in the of Eden Garden with the covenant of works that he said began at Sinai.3 Ussher adopted Perkins’ structure of the covenant of works but shifted it back into the Garden as a relationship between God and Adam. Cartwright spoke about the Garden, as did Ussher, but the earliest editions of Cartwright’s writings did not contain covenantal terminology in reference to the law given to Adam as explicitly as Ussher’s did.4 Ussher at points directly cited Cartwright but added covenantal terminology where it was lacking from Cartwright’s formulas.5 Some readers may have noticed that early Reformation figures, specifically John Calvin, were absent from this study of Ussher’s theology and its sources. The most important reason for this intentional omission was the commitment to avoid artificial points of contact. Just because a theologian was important during the period does not mean he was important to Ussher.6 The sources used in this study were chosen purposefully, and the early modern sources used were selected either because Ussher directly referenced them or because there was a particular reason a figure was important for a specific doctrine. This approach traced organic connections between Ussher and other early modern thinkers and avoided uninformative contrasts

2 Queen’s College, Oxford, MS 217, fol. 42r–​42v. 3 WWP 2:298 (commentary on Galatians 4:24–​25). 4 Thomas Cartwright, Christian Religion (1611), 68–​69. 5 James Ussher, A Body of Divinitie (1645), 124. 6 Richard A. Muller, “Reflections on Persistent Whiggism and Its Anecdotes in the Study of Sixteenth-​and Seventeenth-​Century Intellectual History,” in Alister Chapman, John Coffey, and Brad S. Gregory (eds.), Seeing Things Their Way: Intellectual History and the Return of Religion (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009), 139–​41, 147–​48; Richard A. Muller, “Demoting Calvin: The Issue of Calvin and the Reformed Tradition,” in Amy Nelson Burnett (ed.), John Calvin, Myth and Reality: Images and Impact of Geneva’s Reformer: Papers of the 2009 Calvin Studies Society Colloquium (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011), 3–​17.

256  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works between arbitrarily selected figures.7 By examining demonstrably connected sources, historians are actually able to map which aspects of doctrine a theologian adopted outright and which aspects were adjusted or reformulated. This direct approach eliminates guesswork and provides provable instances of doctrinal transmission and revision. The second consideration for excluding early Reformation figures such as Calvin from this study was that they occupy the middle ground between being direct influences and being part of the broader Christian tradition. Ussher did own books by Calvin, and there is manuscript evidence that he reflected on passages from Calvin’s Institutes.8 Yet his agreement or disagreement with Calvin proves very little of historical value. Calvin died too early to have had any personal connection to Ussher, and his writings appear to have been far less important to Ussher than the works of other, more proximate authors. Calvin was simply “one of several major codifiers or systematizers of the second generation of the Reformation, whose thought was not always appropriated directly into the theologies of later generations of Reformed exegetes, theologians, and pastors.”9 Ussher was not of a radically different theological mold than Calvin, but his continuity or discontinuity with Calvin does not mean much given that Calvin was simply one theologian among many in the Reformed tradition. Additionally, Calvin was not chronologically distant enough from Ussher to be of major significance when analyzing how Ussher’s theology related to the broader Christian tradition. Irenaeus, Anselm, and Aquinas all represent significant periods of church history prior to the Reformation and their ideas shed light on Ussher’s relationship to the long span of Christian tradition. Calvin’s death predated Ussher’s birth by fewer than twenty years and his contrast with Ussher would indicate hardly anything about Ussher’s reshaping of ecumenical ideas within a covenantal framework. This study indicated Ussher was engaged both with ancient and medieval writers as well as with the discussions of his immediate predecessors, and for each doctrine he increased the use and integration of covenantal terminology. Given how this work has argued that Ussher was crucial in the developmental trajectory of the covenant of works, a question might be raised about how his eighteenth-​and nineteenth-​century legacy supports that conclusion. 7 Harrison Perkins, “Reconsidering the Development of the Covenant of Works:  A Study in Doctrinal Trajectory,” CTJ 53, no. 2 (November 2018): 289–​94. 8 For Calvin’s works in Ussher’s library, see TCD MS 5, fol. 34v. For Ussher’s reflections on passages from the Institutes, see Bodl. MS Rawl. C.919, fol. 389r. 9 Richard A. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 10; Muller, “Demoting Calvin,” 3–​17.

Conclusion  257 That question, however, is far more difficult than it might seem. Ussher’s importance in his own time has been noted throughout this study, even for the covenant of works, in connection to the confessional development from the Irish Articles to the Westminster Assembly.10 But the politics of the day have to be noted alongside theological discussions, and it is political considerations that make it difficult to trace Ussher’s theological legacy concerning covenant theology into later centuries. Shortly after Ussher’s death, Ireland and England underwent massive upheavals: in Ireland, the continuation of the Cromwellian Interregnum opened the door to more radical versions of Protestantism, and in England, the Restoration threatened to overturn thoroughly Reformed systems of doctrine that tended toward puritanism, like covenant theology.11 Because of these political events, the theological landscape became far too fragmented to measure Ussher’s legacy on something as specific as the covenant of works. Almost immediately after his death, his legacy became a contested issue between those who viewed him as more puritan and those who saw him as more Anglican. Unsurprisingly, these differing presentations correlated with the reigning political atmosphere.12 Yet the intricacies of the covenant of works hardly ever came to the surface of the most noteworthy theological debates during this time. Arguably the clearest instance of Ussher’s legacy concerning the covenant of works appears in Thomas Barlow’s lectures on justification at Queen’s College, Oxford just before he was appointed bishop of Lincoln in 1675.13 These lectures were an aggressive response to George Bull (1634–​1710), who had opposed the Reformed view of justification by faith alone.14 As noted in Chapter 1, Barlow was the one who notated Ussher’s theological lectures at Queen’s College in 1643–​44, which means there was a demonstrable connection between Ussher’s teaching and Barlow. Barlow implemented the categories of the covenant of works and covenant of grace to refute Bull’s moralist doctrine of justification and to uphold the idea that the moral law required 10 Harrison Perkins, ‘The Westminster Assembly’s Probable Appropriation of James Ussher,” SBET 37, no. 1 (Spring 2019): 45–​63. 11 Crawford Gribben, God’s Irishmen: Theological Debates in Cromwellian Ireland (Oxford: OUP, 2007), 3–​54, 175–​82; Stephen Hampton, Anti-​Arminians:  The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I (Oxford: OUP, 2008), 39–​76. 12 Nicholas Bernard, Life and Death of the Most Reverend and Learned Father of Our Church, Dr. James Usher (1656); Richard Parr, Life of the Most Reverend Father in God, James Ussher (1686); William Dillingham, Vita Laurentii Chadertoni  .  .  .  Una cum vita Jacobi Ussherii, Archiepiscopi Armachani . . . (Canterbury, 1700), 51–​100. 13 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 239. 14 George Bull, Harmonia Apostolica (1670); George Bull, Apologia pro Harmonia (1675); Hampton, Anti-​Arminians,  39–​76.

258  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works absolute perfection for justification.15 His understanding of the covenants was remarkably similar to Ussher’s, and the fact that Barlow had recorded Ussher’s lectures with specific focus on the covenant of works is noteworthy. Even if Barlow did carry on Ussher’s covenant theology among the Restoration-​era Reformed conformists, this one instance does not overturn the complexities of Ussher’s contested legacy among ousted puritans and the Laudians, especially since the later seventeenth-​century Anglicans by and large marginalized the Reformed, which of course made the Reformed aspects of Ussher’s theology unpopular among the established church’s leading figures. As Stephen Hampton wrote, “It would be foolish to claim that, by the dawn of the eighteenth century, Reformed theology was still the dominant theology of the English Church. Even its devoutest adherents admitted that their views were no longer desperately fashionable.”16 Even on the Continent, the process of deconfessionalization was well under way within Reformed territories less than a century after Ussher’s death, which mitigated any impact Ussher’s work could have had there. The most obvious enduring legacy of Ussher’s appears to be among Scottish Presbyterians, who adopted the Westminster Confession, which had incorporated sections of the Irish Articles and had followed the Articles in advancing the covenant of works as a confessional issue.17 The importance of the Scottish Presbyterians’ adoption of the confessional tradition in regards to the covenant of works, which had roots in Ussher’s work, is most clear in the work that they appended to the Westminster standards, The Summe of Saving Knowledge. The Scottish General Assembly received the Westminster standards and published the Summe as a brief overview of the four most foundational theological points that were explained in more detail in the confession. The first topic it addressed was the covenant of works.18 It again discussed the covenant of works as the first topic under the section about practical uses of doctrine, outlining how the principles of law and gospel were structured

15 Hampton, Anti-​Arminians,  93–​96. 16 Hampton, Anti-​Arminians, 127. 17 J. V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards:  Historical Context and Theological Insights (Wheaton, IL:  Crossway, 2014), 125–​67; Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly (Grand Rapids, MI:  RHB, 2012), 35–​79; Stephen G. Myers, Scottish Federalism and Covenantalism in Transition (Eugene, OR:  Pickwick, 2015), 47–​87; Richard A. Muller, “The Rational Defence and Exposition of Christianity:  Thomas Blackwell and Scottish Orthodoxy in the Early Eighteenth Century,” in Aaron Clay Denlinger (ed.), Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland: Essays on Scottish Theology 1560–​1775 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 238–​46. 18 The Summe of Saving Knowledge, with the Practicall Use Thereof (Edinburgh, 1659), sig. I4r–​I4v.

Conclusion  259 by the covenant of works and the covenant of grace and how the covenant of works, which requires perfect obedience, is useful to convince sinners of their need for the Savior, which was a theme that Chapter 6 of the present study noted was important to Ussher’s lecturing and preaching about conversion.19 It seems that Ussher’s brand of covenant theology lived on more predominantly among Scottish Presbyterians than among Anglicans. It should be clear that the upheaval of the English church, to which the Irish church was tightly bound, during the Interregnum and Restoration fragmented the tradition to which Ussher belonged, and caused somewhat of a separation between Reformed theology and high churchmanship that to some degree remains even until today. Ussher, however, was committed to both, and the division of these facets of “Anglicanism” provided the opportunity to make Ussher’s legacy concerning the covenant of works at least opaque, if not buried—​at least until now, when newer studies have begun to discover the importance of Reformed conformity and the crucial role that the covenant of works played in Ussher’s version of it. This study’s most obvious conclusion is that Ussher integrated various theological strands by using the covenant of works. Recent research shows a growing awareness of Ussher’s importance in the first half of the seventeenth century, and Alan Ford demonstrated Ussher’s major role in royal politics and explored his interactions with the most influential clergy of his time. These relationships even crossed religious affiliations and included Roman Catholics, Laudian Anglicans, and the Reformed Protestants that some like to call “puritans.” Ford highlighted the various ways in which Ussher engaged in religious discussions of the day and made serious contributions, not the least of which being his role in the Irish Articles.20 Richard Snoddy examined Ussher’s doctrine of salvation, showing that Ussher engaged a substantial number of sources and developed theologically over his career.21 Neither work, however, examined how Ussher made important use of covenant theology or how covenant theology helps us relate him to other theologians. Ussher used the covenant concept to draw together many topics and give them coherent structure and mutually informing consistency. He saw covenant as ordering and defining the relationship between God and humanity, 19 The Summe, sig. I8r–​I10v. 20 Alan Ford, James Ussher: Theology, History, and Politics in Early-​Modern Ireland and England (New York: OUP, 2007), 85–​103. 21 Richard Snoddy, The Soteriology of James Ussher: The Act and Object of Saving Faith (New York: OUP, 2014).

260  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works which makes his anthropology covenantal. The covenant God made with Adam defined what it meant to be made in God’s image and what responsibilities people have to God. In this way, Ussher drew upon a long tradition of natural law theory and gave it a covenantal shape. Ussher took a traditional Chalcedonian Christology and added covenantal layers to it by defining the work of Christ by his role as the second Adam. Where Adam, the representative for all humankind, failed to keep the law covenant, Christ fulfilled it to provide the righteousness people need in order to enter eternal life. In this way, Ussher formed a sort of Anselmic argument about Christology, but categorized it in covenantal terms. This study’s second major conclusion is that theologians who divided over ecclesiology and politics nevertheless shared doctrines of covenant theology. The covenant category became increasingly used in the seventeenth century, and most Reformed confessions, particularly in England and Ireland, significantly adopted it.22 Too much secondary literature has reduced the term “Reformed” and the notion of covenant to a Presbyterian idea, or maybe more broadly a “puritan” one. Ussher, however, was neither Presbyterian nor Congregationalist but a Reformed conformist, which indicates the breadth and diversity of this tradition. “Anglicanism” and episcopacy did not determine theological systems, and many so-​called puritans drew on Ussher’s work even though they disagreed with him about ecclesiology and, more explosively, politics.23 Ussher’s royalism, as Ian Campbell has written, simply means that the label “Reformed” did not necessarily entail a specific political commitment.24 As noted in Chapter 1, Ussher’s position in the theological spectrum cannot be measured entirely by English concerns, and the commitment to Reformed divinity and conformity may have composed the essence of Irish puritanism. This study’s third major conclusion is that manuscript evidence shows that Ussher used covenant theology as a device to explain the Christian faith and 22 Irish Articles; WCF; Willem van Asselt, “Christ, Predestination, and Covenant in Post-​ Reformation Reformed Theology,” in Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A.G. Roeber (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–​1800 (New York: OUP, 2017), 221–​25; Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids: RHB, 2012), 217–​320. 23 See Chapter 1, foonote 32 for extensive documentation of this claim. 24 Ian W.  S. Campbell, “Calvinist Absolutism:  Archbishop James Ussher and Royal Power,” Journal of British Studies 53 (July 2014): 588–​610; Ben Farwell, “James Ussher and the Divine Right of Kings: A Theory Explored,” MA thesis, Westminster Seminary California, 2016. This point perhaps undermines some of the arguments made about defining the category of “Reformed” made in Chris Caughey and Crawford Gribben, “History, Identity Politics, and the ‘Recovery of the Reformed Confession,’ ” in Matthew C. Bingham et al, On Being Reformed: Debates Over a Theological Identity (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), 1–​26.

Conclusion  261 life to academics and laity alike. Covenant theology appeared in his high-​ level theological works, most prominently lectures for divinity students; in his catechisms, aimed at a literate middle; and throughout his sermons. Ussher apparently thought covenant was a profoundly useful concept for everyone who belonged to God’s people. Many have labeled covenant theology as an arcane and philosophical development within the Reformed tradition, claiming it originates from efforts to smooth over difficulties in the theological system.25 The argument has been that covenant theology is not exegetically based but rather was developed by logic.26 Ussher, however, appropriated a significant exegetical tradition, especially from Perkins and Rollock, that focused on key passages in Romans and Galatians, and formulated biblical arguments for his view.27 All this evidence indicates that Ussher did not think covenant was an overly complicated or arcane doctrine, but one that was exegetically based and supremely useful for God’s people. This is why he wrote about covenant theology, preached it from pulpits, and instructed his ministerial students to do the same. Lastly, Ussher built his views in conversation with the Christian past. His covenant theology was neither arcane nor ad hoc but was used to further and reconstrue traditional theological ideas in new and more sophisticated directions. In this respect, the evidence showed that he stood substantially in the tradition of Thomas Aquinas and used modified versions of several Thomist views to construct his theology. He appropriated Thomas’ emphasis on the natural law being an expression of God’s character, as well as a host of other doctrines including Adam’s eschatological potential and the hypothetically universal value of Christ’s incarnation. These connections between Ussher and Thomas highlighted their shared intellectualist presuppositions, as has been argued throughout this work. One objection to this reading must be addressed, however. Snoddy painted Ussher in a more voluntarist hue, at least in his understanding of saving faith.28 Care must be exercised here because there is no doubt that Reformed theologians were eclectic in their use of philosophical notions and often were not completely consistent in their expression of these ideas, since 25 Amanda-​ Louise Capern, “Slipperye Times and Dangerous Dayes:  James Ussher and the Calvinist Reformation of Britain 1560–​1660,” PhD diss., University of New South Wales, 1991, 56,  60–​61. 26 David A. Weir, The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-​Century Reformation Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 158. 27 Richard A, Muller, “Either Expressly Set Down . . . or by Good and Necessary Consequence,” in Richard A. Muller and Roland S. Ward, Scripture and Worship:  Biblical Interpretation and the Directory for Public Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2007), 69–​81. 28 Snoddy, Soteriology, 130–​36, 235–​38.

262  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works their goal was to advance pastorally applied theology rather than philosophical precision. Ussher did emphasize the mind and the will even in faith: “The two Armes of Faith: the Understandinge, Persuaded of them: And the Will, they embraced them.”29 Snoddy noted that Ussher said both the understanding and the will is “the mayne.”30 In order to maintain his voluntarist assessment, Snoddy explained Ussher’s emphasis on the mind as a “temporal priority.”31 Ussher’s statements, however, clearly show that he explained the will as taking its lead from the mind, which is actually a temporal and logical priority. Christ must persuade, and worke upon his Understandinge, and his Will. To inlighten his Understandinge, and to rectifie, and regulate his Will, and Affections . . . And yet when the Understandinge is inlightned, there is a Will of man that is forward, and cannot bee subject to the Will of God: the Understanding is the mayne: the Will is able to doe nothing but as it is guided by the understandinge: That tells thee Will what is Good, and what is Evill: the Will followes the understandinge, whither It bee true or false: If the understandinge thinke It good, the will takes it so.32 When the Understandinge is corrupted, and poysoned, the Will will follow.33 The Will is guided by the understandinge: the understandinge must give Its verdi[c]‌t before the Will will yeeld.34

Ussher here gave the understanding a clear governing role over the will. The will can act only after the understanding has decided. This is the standard intellectualist position, and broader evidence throughout this work corroborated this as Ussher’s predominant position. When Ussher said, “The Will is the mayne Act of Faith,” he was actually expositing Philippians 2:13 from the Geneva Bible, which reads, “For it is God which worketh in you both the will and the deed, even of his good pleasure.” In this sermon, he was not teaching the will’s priority over the intellect but was pointing out that the will in faith was the source of good deeds that follow from faith: “God workes 29 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 76r (sermon on 2 Thessalonians 1:11, dated May 28, 1648). 30 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 62r (sermon on Deuteronomy 18:15, dated February 27, 1647 [1648]), 76v (sermon on Hebrews 4:16, dated June 4, 1648). 31 Snoddy, Soteriology, 131 n. 175. 32 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 62r (sermon on Deuteronomy 18:15, dated February 27, 1647 [1648]). 33 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 22v (sermon on Genesis 3:2–​6, dated July 10, 1642). 34 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 29r (sermon on Genesis 6:5, dated August 7, 1642).

Conclusion  263 the Will: after this Will, shall come a Deede.”35 Ussher was not speaking with philosophical precision here, but simply using terms from the Geneva Bible translation of Philippians 2:13 to instruct his people that faith manifested itself first in belief in Christ, then in works for Christ. Snoddy incorrectly read voluntarism into this sermon where there was none. He correctly wrote that Ussher’s view was that “true assurance of forgiveness can only come to the one who has taken Christ as saviour and that taking is evidenced in the movement of the will.”36 Yet when Ussher referred to the movement of the will in the cited passages, he was speaking of the act of belief, using biblical phrasing, and was not indicating that the will took precedence over the intellect. When Ussher did speak about the relationship of the understanding and the will, he said, “There be two principall facultyes in the soule, the understanding and the will, w[i]‌th the understanding I comprehend the conscience, and w[i]th the will th’ affections, Christ must make us to know and believe this mysterie, and not onelie so but 2ly [secondly] he must worke on o[ur] wills.”37 Snoddy’s misstep on this point did not undermine his larger argument that Ussher was an experimental predestinarian, as this book also showed, but Ussher was indeed predominantly an intellectualist. It is worth making some final remarks about the complexity of Ussher’s relationship to puritanism and conformity because, in light of the point just made, it is significant in its own right that Ussher preached at all from the Geneva Bible rather than sticking exclusively to the King James Version, not least because Ussher was connected to manuscripts used by KJV translators.38 Ussher himself identified the 1601 printing of the Geneva Bible as the English translation he used, but there is, of course, no reason to make too much of the wording differences between the translations, since in early modern England it was the political baggage accompanying each version that was significant.39 James I convened the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 (the same year canon law was rereleased in England) to address puritan unrest, and the anti-​puritan William Barlow recorded James’ condemnation 35 CUL MS Mm.6.55, fol. 76v (sermon on Hebrews 4:16, dated June 4, 1648). 36 Snoddy, Soteriology, 235. 37 Bodl. MS Eng. th.e.25, fol. 22v (sermon on Hebrews 9:14, dated “New yeares day” 1625 [1626]). 38 Pauline Croft, “The Emergence of the King James Version of the Bible, 1611,” Theology 114, no. 4 (2011): 249; Mordechai Feingold, “Birth and Early Reception of a Masterpiece: Some Loose Ends and Common Misconceptions,” in Mordechai Feingold (ed.), Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord: Scholarship and the Making of the King James Version of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 6–​7, 9. 39 Elizabethanne Boran, “The Libraries of Luke Challoner and James Ussher, 1595–​1608,” in Helga Robinson-​Hammerstein (ed.), European Universities in the Age of Reformation and Counter Reformation (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998), 98.

264  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works of the Geneva Bible as “the worst of all” since it contained notes that the royal establishment found too controversial in their apparent threats to monarchial authority.40 The puritan concern at the conference, represented by John Rainolds (1549–​1607), was to return to the original languages and replace the Bishops’ Bible as the translation of the established church.41 James’ concession to the puritan request for a new translation was not because he sympathized with the puritans but because he saw the opportunity to use their own request to bring them into conformity, which actually makes the KJV an anti-​puritan translation; indeed, the translation of the KJV meant that the “bishops’ triumph over puritanism was nearly complete.”42 The Geneva Bible was still widely used after the KJV was published in 1611, but Ussher’s use of it is a tension within his royalist and conformist commitments. This can perhaps be seen most clearly in light of the fact that in 1616 William Laud banned the printing of the Geneva Bible in England, which led to it being smuggled from Amsterdam during the Laudian-​dominated 1630s.43 Whatever the case, the KJV was hardly the puritan Bible, as the Geneva translation retained that position. It is, therefore, at least interesting that Ussher would preach from the Geneva Bible. Ussher did not preach exclusively from it, since there are instances where he clearly referred to alternative translations that were specific to the seventeenth-​century printings of the KJV.44 His use of the KJV in the 1643–​44 Oxford sermons might be easily explained by the fact that those sermons were delivered before Charles I, and Ussher would have wanted to avoid preaching from a translation that could be seen to have a political point. There are, however, also instances where he referred to marginal notes about

40 Dan G. Danner, “The Contribution of the Geneva Bible of 1560 to the English Protestant Tradition,” SCJ 12, no. 3 (Autumn 1981): 5–​18. 41 Feingold, “Birth and Early Reception,” 1–​4. 42 Lori Anne Ferrell, “The Bible in Early Modern England,” in Anthony Milton (ed.), The Oxford History of Anglicanism, Volume 1: Reformation and Identity, c. 1520–​1662 (Oxford: OUP, 2017), 424–​27, quote from 426; W. B. Patterson, King James VI and I the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge: CUP, 1997), 43–​48; W. B. Patterson, “The King James Bible: A Continuing Mighty Flood,” Sewanee Theological Review 55, no. 1 (2011): 16–​17; Frederick Shriver, “Hampton Court Re-​Visited:  James I  and the Puritans,” JEH 33, no. 1 (January 1982):  58–​71; K. C. Fincham, “Ramifications of the Hampton Court Conference in the Dioceses, 1603–​1609,” JEH 36, no. 2 (April 1985): 208–​27. 43 Croft, “Emergence,” 249; Boran, “Libraries of Luke Challoner and James Ussher,” 99; Maurice S. Betteridge, “The Bitter Notes: The Geneva Bible and its Annotations,” SCJ 14, no. 1 (1983): 44. 44 E.g., Ussher, Eighteen Choice Sermons Preached in Oxford (1662), 398 (sermon on Romans 5:1, appealing to KJV note on Romans 6:7), 372 (sermon on Philippians 2:8, appealing to KJV note on John 11:33), 441 (sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:29, appealing to KJV note on 1 Corthinians 11:29). See The Holy Bible (1617) for marginal notes by the designated verses; this printing is unpaginated.

Conclusion  265 translation from the KJV while preaching in London.45 In other sermons though, he referred to the margin of the Geneva Bible, and appealed to its specific language.46 Although James never commanded the use of the KJV, it would seem natural for Ussher to gravitate entirely toward it, especially since it has been argued that the Geneva was popular because of puritan use of it, not vice versa.47 This tension, however, directly raises the final point about Ussher’s relationship to puritanism and conformity. Neither Irish nor English canon law mandated that a particular translation be used in its services, which means that even Laud’s ban on the Geneva Bible was beyond canon law’s demands. Ussher therefore likely felt no obligation to maintain allegiance to one version, despite any political baggage, and could maintain his mixture of committed conformity and puritan preferences.48 Ussher’s use of the Geneva Bible in his preaching ministry would be one fruitful area of inquiry that scholarship should pursue, but the focus here needs to shift to how this connection to canon law leaves a lingering question about whether puritanism can be defined by any doctrinal commitments.49 At various points this study has used the historical criteria of canon law to show that Ussher maintained essentially “puritan” doctrine within his conformity, as measured by canon law, which raises the question whether any doctrines were in any sense exclusively “puritan.” It seems that puritanism of the English sort should be mainly described—​not defined—​through its rejection of canon law, rather than in terms of any particular theological commitments, since the puritan efforts at purity were largely aimed at various ceremonial features upheld in canon law. On the other hand, Ussher may possibly be described as an Irish puritan, since he worked to produce a distinctly Irish canon law that omitted many of the controversial ceremonial features of English canon law.50 The evidence in this study is by no means sufficient to establish a new paradigm for describing puritanism, but it does seem adequate to suggest that the line

45 E.g., CUL MS Mm. 6.55, fol. 15r fol. 76v (sermon on Hebrews 4:16, dated June 4, 1648, appealing to marginal note on 2 Corinthians 8:10). 46 E.g., CUL MS Mm. 6.55, fol. 9v (sermon on Exodus 34:6, dated July 4, 1641, appealing to marginal note on Lamentations 3:33). 47 Betteridge, “Bitter Notes,” 47–​62. 48 Elizabethanne Boran, “An Early Friendship Network of James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh, 1626–​1656,” in Helga Robinson-​Hammerstein (ed.), European Universities in the Age of Reformation and Counter Reformation (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998), 116–​34. 49 For his PhD thesis, supervised at Glasgow University, Andrew Mullan is presently writing a chapter about Ussher’s use of the Geneva Bible in his preaching. 50 Ford, Ussher, 178–​203.

266  Catholicity and the Covenant of Works of inquiry in considering canon law is worth further investigation, and it has provided some fruitful insights to illumine Ussher in particular. Whereas English puritans hoped to purify the Church of England from canon law, regardless of other theological commitments, we might say that Irish puritans worked to purify the Church of Ireland through canon law as a mechanism to bring a largely Roman Catholic nation into theological conformity with Protestantism. It may be that Irish puritanism could be described in slightly more theological terms than its English counterpart, but far more investigation would be necessary before we could say that with certainty. The point regarding Ussher must remain that he should not be categorized along with English puritans, since the sympathies he held in common with them were mainly just Reformed concerns that other conformists shared. His own Irish context, however, was very different from England’s, and he certainly labored throughout his career to purify the Church of Ireland according to the Reformed faith. Ussher maintained a stable understanding of the covenant of works throughout his career. Ussher consistently featured the framework of covenant theology in each genre of his work and sometimes expressed it in identical phrasing even decades apart. Covenant theology provides a fruitful window into important aspects of Ussher’s thought and helps us understand the premises that undergird those features. This study has shown that Ussher regularly and repeatedly connected the covenant of works with the natural law, intellectualist presuppositions, and soteriological concerns throughout his works. Snoddy showed that Ussher modified his formulations of some doctrines over time, but this claim must be counterbalanced with evidence proving that other aspects of Ussher’s theology changed hardly at all.51 This work has shown that Ussher suffused the covenant of works motif throughout the entirety of his theological corpus, and his legacy cannot be properly understood apart from considerations of his covenantal catholicity.



51 Snoddy, Soteriology, 1–​11, 233–​46.

Bibliography Manuscripts Baliol College, Oxford MS 259, Ussher sermons Bodleian Library, Oxford MS Add. C.299, Ussher papers MS Add. C.301, Ussher papers MS Add. D.35, copied notes of Ussher’s Bibliotheca Theologica MS Add. D.36, copied notes of Ussher’s Bibliotheca Theologica MS Barlow 13, Ussher papers MS Cherry 19, miscellaneous papers MS e Mus. 46, copied notes of Ussher’s Bibliotheca Theologica MS e Mus. 47, copied notes of Ussher’s Bibliotheca Theologica MS Eng.th.e.25, Ussher sermons, 1626 MS Perrott 9, Ussher sermon, 1620 MS Rawlinson C.849, Ussher papers MS Rawlinson C.850, Ussher papers MS Rawlinson C.919, Ussher papers MS Rawlinson D.280, Ussher papers MS Rawlinson D1290, Ussher notebook including sermon outlines Cambridge University Library, Cambridge MS Add. 69, Ussher sermon, 1624 MS Dd.5.31, Ussher sermon, 1626 MS Mm.6.55, Ussher sermons, 1641–​42, 1647–​52 Queen’s College, Oxford MS 217, Thomas Barlow’s notes Queen’s University Belfast MS 1/​128, William Beddel sermons Trinity College, Dublin MS 4, catalogue of Ussher’s books MS 5, catalogue of Ussher’s books (draft for MS 6) MS 6, catalogue of Ussher’s books (copy of MS 5) MS 239, notebook including a tract on predestination MS 287, Ambrose Ussher papers MS 291, Ussher commonplace book MS 773, catechetical material MS 777, catechetical material MS 788, Ussher accounts as chancellor of St. Patrick’s, ends May 1607 MS 792, Ussher theological lectures MS 793, Ussher theological lectures

268 Bibliography MS 1173, Ussher sermons, 1620s MS 1210, Ussher notebook MS 1185, translation of Britannicarum ecclesiarum antiquitates MS 2624, Holy Orders of James Ussher, May 1602 MS 2940, Ambrose Ussher translation of Gravissimae quaestionis

Ussher Printed Primary Sources Church of Ireland. Articles of Religion Agreed upon the Archbishops and Bishops, and the Rest of the Clergie of Ireland, in the Convocation Holden at Dublin in the yeare of 1615 for the avoiding of diviersities of opinions: And the establishing of consent touching true Religion. Dublin: John Franckton, 1615. Church of Ireland. Articles of Religion Agreed upon the Archbishops and Bishops, and the Rest of the Clergie of Ireland, in the Convocation Holden at Dublin in the yeare of 1615 for the avoiding of diviersities of opinions: And the establishing of consent touching true Religion. London: R.Y. for T. Downes, 1628. Church of Ireland. Articles of Religion Agreed upon the Archbishops and Bishops, and the Rest of the Clergie of Ireland, in the Convocation Holden at Dublin in the yeare of 1615 for the avoiding of diviersities of opinions: And the establishing of consent touching true Religion. London: Company of Stationers of the Irish Stocke, 1629. Ussher, James. An Answer to a Challenge Made by a Jesuite in Ireland. Wherein the Iudgement of Antiquity in the points questioned is truly delivered, and the Noveltie of the Romish doctrine plainly discovered. Dublin: Societie of Stationers, 1624. Ussher, James. A Body of Divinitie, or, the Summe and Substance of Christian Religion, Catechetically propounded, and explained, by way of Question and Answer: Methodically and familiarly handled. London: M.F. for Tho. Downes and Geo[rge] Badger, 1645. Ussher, James. A Body of Divinity:  Or, The Sum and Substance of Christian Religion Catechistically propounded and explained, by way of Question and Answer, Methodically and familiarly handled, For the Use of Families, 7th ed. London, 1677. Ussher, James. A Body of Divinity or the Sum and Substance of the Christian Religion, ed. Hastings Robinson. London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1841. Ussher, James. A Body of Divinity: Being the Sum and Substance of the Christian Religion. Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2007. Ussher, James. A Briefe Declaration of the Universalitie of the Church of Christ, and the Unitie of the Catholic Faith professed therein; Delivered in a Sermon Before His Majestie the 20th of June 1624, 3rd impression. London: John Dawson, 1629. Ussher, James. Britannicarum ecclesiarum antiquitates:  Quibus inserta est pestiferae adversus Die gratiam a Pelagio Britanno in ecclesiam inductee hereseos historia. Dublin, 1639. Ussher, James. The Correspondence of James Ussher, 1600–​1656. Edited by Elizabethanne Boran. 3 volumes. Dublin: Irish Manuscripts Commission, 2015. Ussher, James. The dalie Examination, and Arraigment of Sins; gathered out of the Most Reverend the Primate of Ireland’s Sermon at Lincoln’s Inn. Decemb. 3.  1648. London, 1648. Ussher, James. A Discourse of the Religion Anciently Professed by the Irish and the British. London, 1631.

Bibliography  269 Ussher, James. Eighteen Choice Sermons Preached in Oxford in the Time of the Wars, before his late Majesty of Blessed Memory. Or Conversion unto God, Redemption, Justification by Christ. London, 1662. Ussher, James. Gotteschalci et Predestinatianae Controversiae ab eo Motae Historia: und cum duplice eiusdem Confessione nunc primum in lucem edita. Dublin:  Societatis Bibliopolarune, 1631. Ussher, James. Gravissimae quaestionis de Christianarum ecclesiarum, in occidentis praesertim partibus, ab apostolicis temporibus ad nostrum usque oetem, continua successione et statu, historica explication. London, 1613. Ussher, James. Immanuel of the Mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God. London: John Parker, &c., 1638. Ussher, James. James Ussher and a Reformed Episcopal Church: Sermons and Treatises on Ecclesiology. Edited by Richard Snoddy. Moscow, ID: The Davenant Press, 2018. Ussher, James. Polycarpi et Ignatii Epistolae. Oxford: Leonard Lichfield Academy, 1644. Ussher, James. The Principles of Christian Religion: Sumarily Set downe according to the word of God: Together with A Brief Epitomie of the Bodie of Divinity. London, 1645. Ussher, James. The Principles of the Christian Religion: Summarily sett downe according to the Word of God: Together with a Briefe Epitomie of the Body of Divinitie. London, 1647. Ussher, James. The Principles of the Christian Religion: Summarily sett downe according to the Word of God: Together, with a Briefe Epitomie of the Body of Divinity. London, 1650. Ussher, James. The Principles of Christian Religion with a Brief Method the Doctrine thereof. Now Fully Corrected and much enlarged by the Author. London, 1653. Ussher, James. The Soveraignes Power, and the Subjects Duty: Delivered in a Sermon, at Christ-​Church in Oxford, March 3, 1643. Oxford, 1644 [1643]. Ussher, James. A Speech Delivered in the Castle Chamber at Dublin, the XXII of November, Anno 1622. At the Censuring of certaine Officers, who refused to take the Oath of Supremacie. London: Partners of the Irish Stocke, 1631. Ussher, James. The Substance of that Which Was Delivered in a Sermon before the Commons House of Parliament, in St. Margarets Church at Westminster, the 18 of February, 1620. London, 1621. Ussher, James. The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher D.D., Lord Archbishop of Armagh, and Primate of All Ireland. Edited by Charles R. Elrington and J. H. Todd. 17 volumes. Dublin: Hodges, Smith, and Co., 1829–​1864.

Other Primary Sources Amesium, Guilielmum. Medulla of S.S. Theologiae ex Sacris literis, earumque, interpretibus, extracta, & methodicè disposita. London: Apud Robertum Allottum, 1629. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. 5 volumes. South Bend, IN: Christian Classics, 1948. Ball, John. A Short Treatise, Contayning all the Principall Grounds of the Christian Religion. 11th impression. London: R. Bishop, 1637. Ball, John. A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace. London: Edward Brewster, 1645. Baxter, Richard. Reliquiae Baxterianae:  or, Mr. Richard Baxter’s Narrative of the Most Memorable Passages of His Life and Times: Faithfully Published from his own Original Manuscript by Matthew Sylvester. London, 1696.

270 Bibliography Braun, Johannes. Doctrina Foederum sive Systema Theologiae Didacticae & Elencticae; perspicua atque facili methodo. Amsterdam: Abraham von Someren, 1691. Burges, Cornelius. No sacrilege nor sin to alienate or purchase cathedral lands. London: James Cottrel, 1660. Cartwright, Thomas. Christian Religion. London: Felix Kingston, 1611. Cartwright, Thomas. A Methodicall Short Catechism. London: B.A., 1623. Cartwright, Thomas. A Treatise of Christian Religion, or The Whole Bodie and Substance of Diuinitie. London, 1616. Cocceius, Johannes. Summa Doctrinae de Foedere et Testamento Dei. Leiden: Elseviriorum, 1654. Crooke, Samuel. The Guide unto True Blessednesse. London: John Pirdley, 1613. Davenant, John. An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians. Translated by Josiah Allport. 2 volumes. London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1881. Fenner, Dudley. Certain Godly and Learned Treatises. Edinburgh:  Robert Waldegrave, 1592. Fenner, Dudley. Sacra theologia, sive, Veritas quae est secundum pietatem ad vnicae & versae methodi leges descripta & in decem libros. S.I.: T. Dawson, 1585. Hoyle, Joshua. Jehojadahs Iustice Against Mattan, Baals Priest: or The Covenanters Justice Against Idolaters. A Sermon Preacht upon Occaision of a Speech utter’d upon Tower-​Hill. London, 1645. Hoyle, Joshua. A Reioynder to Master Malone’s Reply Concerning the Reall Presence. Dublin, 1641. Montagu, Richard. A gagg for the new gospel? No:  a new gagg for an old goose. London, 1624. Perkins, William. An Exposition of the Symbole or Creede of the Apostles. Cambridge: John Legate, 1611. Perkins, William. The Workes of That Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ in the Universitie of Cambridge, Mr. William Perkins. 3 volumes. London: John Legatt, 1626. Richardson, John. Containing in them many remarkable matters, either not taken notice of, or mistaken by most, which are additionals to the large annotations made by some of the Assembly of Divines. To which are added some further and larger observations of his upon the whole book of Genesis: perused and attested by the Reverend Bishop of Armagh, and Mr. Gataker Pastor of Rederith. London: John Stafford, 1655. Rollock, Robert. Analysis logica in epistolam Pauli apostoli ad Galatas. London:  Felix Kyngston, 1602. Rollock, Robert. Analysis logica in epistolam ad Hebraeos. Edinburgh: Robert Charter, 1605. Rollock, Robert. “Robert Rollock’s Catechism on God’s Covenants.” Translated by Aaron C. Denlinger. Mid-​America Journal of Theology 20 (2009): 105–​29. Rollock, Robert. Some Questions and Answers About God’s Covenants and the Sacrament That Is a Seal of God’s Covenant: with Related Texts. Translated and edited by Aaron Clay Denlinger. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2016. Rollock, Robert. Tractus de vocatione efficaci, quae inter locos theologiae communissimos recensetur, deque locis specialioribus, qui sub vocatione comprehenduntur. Edinburgh: Robert Waldegrave, 1597. Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Translated by George Musgrave Giger. Edited by James T. Dennison. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992. Twisse, William. A Briefe Catechetical Exposition of Christian Doctrine. London: L.N., 1633.

Bibliography  271 Van Dixhoorn, Chad (ed.). The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643–​ 1652. 5 volumes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Westminster Assembly. The humble advice of the Assembly of Divines, now by authority of Parliament sitting at Westminster, concerning a confession of faith, presented by them lately to both houses of Parliament. A certain number of copies are ordered to be printed only for the use of the members of both houses and of the Assembly of Divines, to the end that they may advise thereupon. London: Printed for the Company of Stationers, [1646].

Ussher Secondary Literature Abbott, William M. “James Ussher and ‘Ussherian’ Episcopacy, 1640–​1656: The Primate and His Reduction Manuscript.” Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 22, no. 2 (1990): 237–​59. Aiken, John. The Lives of John Selden Esq. and Archbishop Usher. London: Mathews & Leigh, 1812. Barnard, T. C. “The Purchase of Archbishop Ussher’s Library in 1657.” The Long Room 4 (1971): 9–​14. Barr, James. “Why the World Was Created in 4004 BC:  Archbishop Ussher and Biblical Chronology.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of Manchester 67, no. 2 (1985): 575–​608. Bernard, Nicholas. The Life and Death of the Most Reverend and Learned Father of Our Church, Dr.  James Usher, Late Arch-​Bishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland Published in a Sermon at His Funeral at the Abby of Westminster April 17, 1656. London, 1656. Birkwood, Katherine. “‘Our Learned Primate’ and That ‘Rare Treasurie’: James Ussher’s Use of Sir Robert Cotton’s Manuscript Library, c. 1603–​1655.” Library and Information History 26, no. 1 (2010): 33–​42. Boran, Elizabethanne. “An Early Friendship Network of James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh, 1626–​1656.” In Helga Robinson-​Hammerstein (ed.), European Universities in the Age of Reformation and Counter Reformation, 116–​34. Dublin:  Four Courts Press, 1998. Boran, Elizabethanne. “Libraries and Learning:  The Early History of Trinity College, Dublin from 1592–​1641.” PhD dissertation, Trinity College, Dublin, 1995. Boran, Elizabethanne. “The Libraries of Luke Challoner and James Ussher, 1595–​1608.” In Helga Robinson-​Hammerstein (ed.), European Universities in the Age of Reformation and Counter Reformation, 75–​115. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998. Boran, Elizabethanne. “Ramism in Trinity College, Dublin from 1592 to 1641.” In Mordechai Feingold, Joseph S. Freedman, and Wolfgang Rother (eds.), The Influence of Petrus Ramus, 178–​201. Basle: Schwabe, 2001. Boran, Elizabethanne. “Ussher and the Collection of Manuscripts in Early Modern Europe.” In Jason Harris and Keith Sidwell (eds.), Making Ireland Roman: Irish Neo-​ Latin writers and the Republic of Letters, 176–​94. Cork: Cork University Press, 2009. Campbell, Ian W.  S. “Archbishop James Ussher and Kingship in the Three Stuart Kingdoms.” Paper presented at the conference “Religion in the British Isles, 1400–​ 1700,” Oxford, United Kingdom, April 6, 2015. Campbell, Ian W. S. “Calvinist Absolutism: Archbishop James Ussher and Royal Power.” Journal of British Studies 53 (July 2014): 588–​610.

272 Bibliography Capern, Amanda-​Louise. “The Caroline Church: James Ussher and the Irish Dimension.” Historical Journal 39 (1996): 57–​85. Capern, Amanda-​Louise. “Slipperye Times and Dangerous Dayes: James Ussher and the Calvinist Reformation of Britain 1560–​1660.” PhD dissertation, University of New South Wales, 1991. Carr, J. A. The Life and Times of Archbishop James Ussher. London: Wells Gardner, Darton and Co., 1895. Clarke, Samuel. “The Life and Death of James Usher, Dr.  of Divinity, Archbishop of Armagh, Primate, and Metropolitan of all Ireland who dyed Anno Christi 1655.” In A Collection of the Lives of Ten Eminent Divines, Famous in their Generations for Learning, Prudence, Piety, and painfulness in the work of the Ministry. Whereunto is added, the Life of Gustavus Ericson, King of Sueden, who first Reformed Religion in that Kingdome, and of some other Eminent Christians. London, 1662. Clary, Ian Hugh. “‘The Conduit to Conveigh Life’:  An Evaluation of James Ussher’s Immanuel in Light of Patristic Christology.” ThM thesis, Toronto Baptist Seminary and Bible College, 2010. Clary, Ian Hugh. “‘The Conduit to Conveigh Life’: James Ussher’s Immanuel and Patristic Christology.” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 30, no. 2 (Autumn 2010): 160–​76. Clausen, Sara Jean. “Calvinism in the Anglican Hierarchy, 1603–​1643: Four Episcopal Examples.” PhD dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1989. Coffin, Henry Sloane. “An Anglican Precursor of the ‘Basic Principles.’” Anglican Theological Review 26, no. 1 (January 1944): 49–​51. Cunningham, Bernadette, and Raymond Gillespie. “James Ussher and His Irish Manuscripts.” Studia Hibernica 33 (2004–​5): 81–​99. Cunningham, Jack. “The Eirenicon and the ‘Primitive Episcopacy’ of James Ussher: An Irish Panacea for Britannia’s Ailment.” Reformation and Renaissance Review 8, no. 2 (2006): 128–​46. Cunningham, Jack. James Ussher and John Bramhall: The Theology and Politics of Two Irish Ecclesiastics of the Seventeenth Century. Cornwall, UK: Ashgate, 2007. Day, Maurice F. Archbishop Ussher (Born in Dublin A.D. 1580): His Life and Character, A Lecture. Dublin: Hodges & Smith, 1861. Dillingham, William. Vita Laurentii Chadertoni  .  .  .  Una cum vita Jacobi Ussherii, Archiepiscopi Armachani . . . Canterbury, 1700. Dowden, John. “Archbishop Ussher.” In J. H. Bernard (ed.), Peplographia Dublinensis, 3–​ 29. London: Macmillan, 1902. Farwell, Ben. “James Ussher and the Divine Right of Kings:  A Theory Explored.” MA thesis, Westminster Seminary California, 2016. Fisher, Payne. Armachanus Redivivus vel, In Aprilis 17mum diem nuperi Funeris Domini Virique vere reverendi, pientissimi, nec non eruditissimi Jacobu Ussherii Totius Hiberiaw Primatis, &c. Oratio Anniversaria Habita nuper as Academ. Celeberrimam Oxoniae, Illustrussimoque Domino Richardo ejusdem Cancellario, & Domino Henrico Cancellario Dublini. London, 1658. Fluent, Mike. “James Ussher:  Champion of Piety and Scholarship.” Fundamentalist Journal 6, no. 7 (July–​August 1987): 31–​33. Ford, Alan. “Correspondence Between Archbishops Ussher and Laud.” Archivium Hibernicum 46 (1991–​92): 5–​21. Ford, Alan. “Dependent or Independent? The Church of Ireland and Its Colonial Context, 1536–​1649.” The Seventeenth Century 10, no. 2 (1995): 163–​87.

Bibliography  273 Ford, Alan. “Goliath and the Boy David: Henry Fitzsimon, James Ussher and the Birth of Irish Religious Debate.” In Salvador Ryan and Clodagh Tait (eds.), Religion and Politics in Urban Ireland, c. 1500–​c. 1750: Essays in Honor of Colm Lennon, 108–​33. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2016. Ford, Alan. “Irish Articles (1615).” In Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America, 430–​32. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-​CLIO, 2006. Ford, Alan. “James Ussher and the Creation of an Irish Protestant Identity.” In Brendan Bradshaw and Peter Roberts (eds.), British Consciousness and Identity: The Making of Britain, 1533–​1707, 185–​212. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Ford, Alan. “James Ussher and the Godly Prince in Seventeenth-​Century Ireland.” In Hiram Morgan (ed.), Political Ideology in Ireland, 1541–​1641, 203–​29. Dublin: Four Courts, 1999. Ford, Alan. James Ussher:  Theology, History, and Politics in Early-​Modern Ireland and England. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Ford, Alan. “Living Together, Living Apart: Sectarianism in Early Modern Ireland.” In Alan Ford and John McCafferty (eds.), The Origins of Sectarianism in Early Modern Ireland, 1–​23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Ford, Alan. “‘Making Dead Men Speak’: Manipulating the Memory of James Ussher.” In Mark Williams and Stephen Paul Forrest (eds.), Constructing the Past: Writing Irish History, 1600–​1800, 49–​69. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 2010. Ford, Alan. “Shaping History: James Ussher and the Church of Ireland.” In Mark Empey, Alan Ford, and Miriam Moffitt (eds.), The Church of Ireland and Its Past:  History, Interpretation and Identity, 19–​35. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2017. Ford, Coleman M. “‘Everywhere, Always, by All’: William Perkins and James Ussher on the Constructive Use of the Fathers.” Puritan Reformed Journal 7, no. 2 (2015): 95–​111. Fraser, James G. “Ussher’s Sixth Copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch.” Vetus Testamentum 21, no. 1 (January 1971): 100–​102. Giblin, Cathaldus. “Aegidius Chaissy, O.F.M., and James Ussher.” Irish Ecclesiastical Record, ser. 5, vol. LXXV (June 1956): 393–​405. Gordon, Alexander. “James Ussher.” Dictionary of National Biography, s.v. Gribben, Crawford. The Irish Puritans:  James Ussher and the Reformation of the Church. Darlington, UK: Evangelical Press, 2003; rept. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2014. Gribben, Crawford. “Rhetoric, Fiction and Theology: James Ussher and the Death of Jesus Christ.” The Seventeenth Century 20 (2005), 53–​76. Groves, Colin. “From Ussher to Slusher, from Archbish to Gish:  or, Not in a Million Years . . .” Archeology in Oceania 31, no. 3 (1996): 145–​51. Gwynn, Aubrey. “Archbishop Ussher and Fr Brendan O’Connor.” In Franciscan Fathers (ed.), Father Luke Wadding, 263–​283. Dublin: Clonmore and Reynolds, 1957. Haykin, Michael A.  G. The Reformers and Puritans as Spiritual Mentors. Kitchener, ON: Joshua Press, 2012. Hiscock, Peter. “The Creation of Time.” Archeology in Oceania 31, no. 3 (1996): 101–​2. Hone, Richard B. The Lives of Eminent Christians, Volume 1:  Archbishop Usher; Dr Hammond; Bishop Wilson; John Evelyn Esq. London: John W. Parker, 1833. Hopkirk, D. S. “‘The Reduction’: Archbishop Ussher’s Historic Effort in Accommodation.” The Reformed Theological Review 11 (July 1952): 61–​71. Knox, Jamie Blake. “High Church History:  C. R.  Elrington and His Edition of James Ussher’s Works.” In Mark Empey, Alan Ford, and Miriam Moffitt (eds.), The Church

274 Bibliography of Ireland and Its Past: History, Interpretation and Identity, 74–​94. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2017. Knox, R. Buick. “Archbishop Ussher and Richard Baxter.” Ecumenical Review 12, no. 1 (1959): 50–​63. Knox, R. Buick. “Caroline Trio: Ussher, Laud, and Williams.” Church Quarterly Review 164, no. 353 (October–​December 1963): 442–​57. Knox, R. Buick. “The English Civil War: Archbishop Ussher and His Circle.” The London Quarterly and Holborn Review 187 (January 1962): 60–​66. Knox, R. Buick. James Ussher:  Archbishop of Armagh. Cardiff:  University of Wales Press, 1967. Knox, R. Buick. “Ussher and the Church of Ireland.” Church Quarterly Review 161, no. 339 (April–​June 1960): 148–​62. Lawlor, Hugh Jackson. “Primate Ussher’s Library Before 1641.” In Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 3rd series, vol. 6, 216–​64. Dublin: Academy House, 1900–​1902. Leeman, Saul. “Was Bishop Ussher’s Chronology Influenced by a Midrash?” Jewish Biblical Quarterly 31, no. 3 (July–​September 2003): 195–​196. Leerson, Joseph. “Archbishop Ussher and Gaelic Culture.” Studia Hibernica 22–​23 (1982–​83): 50–​58. Lim, Paul. “Hypothetical Universalism and Real Calvinism in Seventeenth Century England.” Reformation 13 (2008): 194–​204. Lotz-​Heumann, Ute. “The Protestant Interpretation of History in Ireland: The Case of James Ussher’s Discourse.” In Bruce Gordon (ed.), Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth-​Century Europe, vol. 2:  The Later Reformation (Aldershot, UK:  Scholar, 1996), 107–​20. Lotz-​Heumann, Ute. “‘The Spirit of Prophecy Has Not Wholly Left the World’:  The Stylisation of Archbishop James Ussher as a Prophet.” In Helen Parish and William G. Naphy (eds.), Religion and Superstition in Reformation Europe, 119–​32. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994. Macaulay, James. “Archbishop Ussher.” In Short Biographies for the People, Vol. VII, no. 78. London, 1891. McCafferty, John. “St. Patrick for the Church of England:  James Ussher’s Discourse.” Bullán 3 (1997): 87–​101. McCarthy, D. P. “The Biblical Chronology of James Ussher.” Irish Astronomy Journal 24, no. 1 (1997): 73–​82. Meehan, Bernard. “The Manuscript Collection of James Ussher.” In Peter Fox (ed.), Treasures of the Library, Trinity College Dublin, 97–​110. Dublin: Trinity College, 1986. Millett, Benignus. “James Ussher, Francis Barnaby and Blessed Conor O’Devany, January–​ February 1612.” Collectanea Hibernica 38 (1996): 40–​51. Moore, Jonathan. “James Ussher’s Influence on the Synod of Dort.” In Aza Goudriaan and Fred Van Lieburg (eds.), Revisiting the Synod of Dort (1618–​1619), 163–​79. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Murray-​Wallace, Colin V. “Understanding ‘Deep’ Time-​Advances Since Archbishop Ussher?” Archeology in Oceania 31, no. 3 (October 1996): 173–​77. Numbers, Ronald L. “‘The Most Important Biblical Discovery of Our Time’: William Henry Green and the Demise of Ussher’s Chronology.” Church History 69 (2000): 257–​76. O’Sullivan, William. “Correspondence of David Rothe and James Ussher, 1619–​23.” Collectanea Hibernica 36–​37 (1994–​95).

Bibliography  275 O’Sullivan, William. “Ussher as a Collector of Manuscripts.” Hermathena 88 (November 1956): 34–​58. Oulton, J. E. L. “Ussher’s Work as a Patristics Scholar and Church Historian.” Hermathena 88 (November 1956): 3–​11. Parr, Richard. The Life of the Most Reverend Father in God, James Ussher, Late Lord Arch-​ Bishop of Armagh, Primate and Metropolitan of All Ireland. London, 1686. Perkins, Harrison. “Manuscript and Material Evidence for James Ussher’s Authorship of A Body of Divinitie (1645).” Evangelical Quarterly 89, no. 2 (2018): 133–​61. Sawyer, Kathryn Rose. “James Ussher and the Theological Maturation of the Church of Ireland, 1600–​1634.” MA thesis, Concordia University, 2011. Smith, Jenny Claire. “Heresy and Orthodoxy in Carolingian Europe: Gottschalk of Orbais’ Use of Patristic Texts in a Debate on Divine Predestination.” MA thesis, Valdosta State University, 2015. Smith, Robert W. “James Ussher:  Biblical Chronicler.” Anglican Theological Review 41 (1959): 84–​94. Snoddy, Richard. The Soteriology of James Ussher: The Act and Subject of Saving Faith. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Snoddy, Richard. “The Sources of James Ussher’s Patristic Citations on the Intent and Sufficiency of Christ’s Satisfaction.” In Jon Balserak and Richard Snoddy (eds.), Learning from the Past:  Essays on Reception, Catholicity, and Dialogue in Honour of Anthony N. S. Lane, 107–​29. Edinburgh: Bloomsbury T. & T. Clark, 2015. Styles, Phillip. “James Ussher and His Times.” Hermathena 88 (November 1956): 12–​33. Sykes, Norman. “James Ussher as Churchman.” Hermathena 88 (November 1956): 59–​80. Tollefson, R. J. A Study of the Church in the Life and Thought of Archbishop James Ussher. PhD dissertation, University of Iowa, 1963. Trevor-​Roper, Hugh. Catholics, Anglicans and Puritans: Seventeenth Century Essays, 120–​ 65. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. Trueman, Carl R. “Reformed Orthodoxy in Britain.” In Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, 261–​91. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Vance, Norman. “Seventeenth-​Century Beginnings: Archbishop Ussher and the Earl of Roscommon.” In Irish Literature:  Tradition, Identity and Difference, 2nd ed., 18–​63. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1999. Wallace, R. L. “The Articles of the Church of Ireland of 1615.” PhD dissertation, Edinburgh University, 1949. Watson, E. W. “James Ussher.” In W. E. Collins (ed.), Typical English Churchmen, 59–​77. London: SPCK, 1902.

Other Secondary Literature Babcock, William S. “Augustin on Sin and Moral Agency.” Journal of Religious Ethics 16, no. 1 (1988): 28–​55. Baker, J. Wayne. Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant:  The Other Reformed Tradition. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Trans. G. W. Bromiley. 14 volumes. Grand Rapids, MI: Hendriksen Publishers, 2010.

276 Bibliography Beach, J. Mark. Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Beeke, Joel R., and Mark Jones. Puritan Theology:  Doctrine for Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012. Betteridge, Thomas. “The Henrician Reformation and Mid-​Tudor Culture.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 35, no. 1 (Winter 2005): 91–​109. Bierma, Lyle D. “Federal Theology in the Sixteenth Century:  Two Traditions?” Westminster Theological Journal 45 (Fall 1983): 304–​21. Bierma, Lyle D. German Calvinism in the Confessional Age:  The Covenant Theology of Casper Olevianus. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996. Blowers, Paul M. “The Regula Fidei and the Narrative Character of Early Christian Faith.” Pro Ecclesia 6, no. 2 (1997): 199–​228. Bokedal, Tomas. “The Rule of Faith:  Tracing Its Origins.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 7, no. 2 (2013): 233–​55. Boran, Elizabethanne. “Malignancy and the Reform of the University of Oxford in the Mid-​Seventeenth Century.” History of Universities XVII (2001–​2): 19–​45. Boran, Elizabethanne. “A Third Reformation? ‘Persecution and Oppression’ in Seventeenth-​Century Kilkenny.” Old Kilkenny Review 59 (2007): 52–​68. Bottigheimer, Karl. “The Failure of the Reformation in Ireland: Une Question Bien Posée.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 36, no. 2 (April 1985): 196–​207. Bottigheimer, Karl. “The Reformation in Ireland Revisited.” Journal of British Studies 15, no. 2 (Spring 1976): 140–​49. Bottigheimer, Karl. “The Restoration and the Land Settlement in Ireland: A Structural View.” Irish Historical Studies 18, no. 69 (March 1972): 1–​21. Bottigheimer, Karl. “Revisionism and the Irish Reformation.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 51, no. 3 (July 2000): 581–​86. Bottigheimer, Karl S., and Ute Lotz-​Heumann. “The Irish Reformation in European Perspective.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 89 (1998): 268–​309. Bowen, Desmond. History and the Shaping of Irish Protestantism. New  York:  Peter Lang, 1995. Burke, John. A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Peerage and Baronetage of the British Empire, 6th ed. London: Henry Colburn, 1839. Burton, Simon J. G. “The Heavenly Pattern of the Church: Trinitarian and Covenantal Themes in Richard Baxter’s ‘Association Ecclesiology.’” Ecclesiology 10, no. 1 (2014): 53–​75. Bradshaw, Brendan. The Dissolution of the Religious Orders in Ireland Under Henry VIII. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1974, repr. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Bradshaw, Brendan. “The English Reformation and Identity Formation in Wales and Ireland.” In Brendan Bradshaw and Peter Roberts (eds.), British Consciousness and Identity: The Making of Britain, 1533–​1707, 43–​111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Bradshaw, Brendan. “Nationalism and Historical Scholarship in Early Modern Ireland.” Irish Historical Studies 26, no. 104 (November 1989): 329–​51. Bradshaw, Brendan. “Revisionism and the Irish Reformation:  A Rejoinder.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 51, no. 3 (July 2000): 587–​91. Canny, Nicholas. “The Formation of the Irish Mind: Religion, Politics and Gaelic Irish Literature, 1580–​1750.” Past & Present 95 (1982): 91–​116.

Bibliography  277 Canny, Nicholas. “Protestants, Planters and Apartheid in Early Modern Ireland.” Irish Historical Studies 25, no. 98 (November 1986): 105–​15. Canny, Nicholas. “Why the Reformation Failed in Ireland: Une Question Mal Posée.” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 30, no. 4 (October 1979): 423–​50. Canny, Nicholas. “Writing in Early Modern History:  Ireland, Britain and the Wider World.” The Historical Journal 46, no. 3 (September 2003): 723–​47. Canny, Nicholas, Karl S. Bottigheimer, and Steven G. Ellis. “The Debate About the Irish Reformation:  Some Reflections on Twentieth-​ Century Historiography.” In Mark Empey, Alan Ford, and Miriam Moffitt (eds.), The Church of Ireland and Its Past: History, Interpretation and Identity, 237–​65. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2017. Carlton, Charles. Archbishop William Laud. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987. Caughey, Christopher Earl. “Puritan Responses to Antinomianism in the Context of Reformed Covenant Theology:  1630–​1696.” PhD dissertation, Trinity College, Dublin, 2013. Clark, R. Scott. “The Benefits of Christ:  Double Justification in Protestant Theology Before the Westminster Assembly.” In Anthony T. Selvaggio (ed.), The Faith Once Delivered: Celebrating the Legacy of Reformed Systematic Theology and the Westminster Assembly (Essays in Honor of Dr.  Wayne Spear) (Phillipsburg, NJ:  P&R Publishing, 2007), 107–​34. Clark, R. Scott. “Casper Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant.” DPhil thesis, Oxford University, 1998. Clark, R. Scott. Casper Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant: The Double Benefit of Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008. Clark, R. Scott. “Christ and Covenant: Federal Theology in Orthodoxy.” In Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, 403–​28. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Clark, R. Scott. “Iustitia imputata Christi:  Alien or Proper to Luther’s Doctrine of Justification?” Concordia Theological Quarterly 70, nos. 3–​ 4 (July–​ October 2006): 269–​310. Clark, R. Scott. “The Reception of Paul in Heidelberg:  The Pauline Commentaries of Casper Olevianus.” In R. Ward Holder (ed.), A Companion to Paul in the Reformation, 297–​315. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Clary, Ian Hugh. “Backgrounds to the English Reformation: Three Views.” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 22 (2011): 77–​87. Clary, Ian Hugh. “Hot Protestants: A Taxonomy of English Puritanism.” Puritan Reformed Journal 2, no. 1 (2010): 41–​66. Collier, Jay T. Debating Perseverance:  The Augustinian Heritage in Post-​Reformation England. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Como, David R. Blown by the Spirit:  Puritanism and the Emergence of an Antinomian Underground in Pre-​Civil-​War England. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004. Como, David R. “Predestination and Political Conflict in Laud’s London.” The Historical Journal 46, no. 2 (2003): 263–​394. Connolly, S. J. Contested Island: Ireland 1460–​1630. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Connolly, S. J. Divided Kingdom:  Ireland 1630–​ 1800. Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2008. Cunningham, Jack. “Bramhall’s Other Island: A Laudian Solution to an Irish Problem.” Irish Historical Studies 36, no. 141 (2008): 1–​15. Curtis, William. A History of Creeds and Confessions of Faith in Christendom and Beyond with Historical Tables. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911.

278 Bibliography Cust, Richard. Charles I: A Political Life. Hong Kong: Pearson Longman, 2005. Davies, Brian. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae:  A Guide and Commentary. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Davies, Brian. The Thought of Thomas Aquinas. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Davies, Brian, and Eleonore Stump (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Aquinas. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Deme, Dániel. The Christology of Anselm of Canterbury. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2003. Denlinger, Aaron C. Omnes in Adam ex pacto Dei:  Ambrogio Catarino’s Doctrine of Covenantal Solidarity and Its Influence on Post-​Reformation Reformed Theologians. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Denlinger, Aaron C. “Robert Rollock on Covenant and Sacrament:  Two Texts.” Reformation and Renaissance Review 15, no. 2 (2013): 199–​211. Donnelly, John Patrick. “Calvinist Thomism.” Viator 7 (1976): 441–​455. Doyle, Robert C. “Review of Stephen Strehle, Calvinism, Federalism, and Scholasticism.” The Reformed Theological Review 49, no. 2 (May–​August 1990): 70–​71. Duncan, J. Ligon, III. The Covenant Idea in Ante-​Nicene Theology. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1995. Ellis, Steven G. “Economic Problems of the Church:  Why the Reformation Failed in Ireland.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 41, no. 2 (April 1990): 239–​65. Empey, Mark. “Creating a Usable Past: James and Robert Ware.” In Mark Empey, Alan Ford and Miriam Moffitt (eds.), The Church of Ireland and Its Past: History, Interpretation and Identity, 36–​56. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2017. Fesko, J. V. Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology (1517–​1700). Bristol, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Fesko, J. V. The Covenant of Redemption:  Origins, Development, and Reception. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Fesko, J. V. The Covenant of Works:  Origins, Development, and Reception. OUP, forthcoming. Fesko, J. V. Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition:  Supra-​and Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort, and Westminster. Greenville, SC: Reformed Academic Press, 2001. Fesko, J. V. “Lapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dort.” In Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (eds.), Drawn into Controversie:  Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism, 99–​123. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Fesko, J. V. “Reformed and Catholic? Brief Reflections on the Need to Recover Reformed Catholicity.” Paper presented at the conference “Reformation 500,” Chongshin Theological Seminary, Seoul, South Korea, November 6–​9, 2017. Fesko, J. V. The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014. Fesko, J. V. “The Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism: Calvin and the Divines.” In J. Ligon Duncan III (ed.), The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century: Essays in Remembrance of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly, 2:477–​525. Ross-​ shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2004. Ford, Alan. “Apocalyptic Ireland, 1580–​1641.” Irish Theological Quarterly 78, no. 2 (2013): 128–​43. Ford, Alan. “Criticising the Godly Prince:  Malcolm Hamilton’s Passages and Consultations.” In Vincent P. Carey and Ute Lotz-​Heumann (eds.), Taking Sides?

Bibliography  279 Colonial and Confessional Mentalités in Early Modern Ireland: Essays in Honor of Karl S. Bottigheimer, 116–​37. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2003. Ford, Alan. “High or Low? Writing the Irish Reformation in the Early Nineteenth Century.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 90, no. 1 (Spring 2014): 93–​112. Ford, Alan. “The Irish Historical Renaissance and the Shaping of Protestant History.” In Alan Ford and John McCafferty (eds.), The Origins of Sectarianism in Early Modern Ireland, 127–​57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Ford, Alan. “One Church, Two Histories: The Jacobean and the Caroline Traditions in the Church of Ireland, 1600–​2000.” In Mark Empey, Alan Ford, and Miriam Moffitt (eds.), The Church of Ireland and Its Past: History, Interpretation and Identity, 286–​305. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2017. Ford, Alan. The Protestant Reformation in Ireland, 1590–​1641, 2nd ed. Dublin:  Four Courts Press, 1997. Ford, Alan. “‘That Bugbear Arminianism’: Archbishop Laud and Trinity College Dublin.” In Ciaran Brady and Jane Ohlmeyer (eds.), British Interventions in Early Modern Ireland, 135–​60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Ford, Alan. “‘That Noble Dream’: Objectivity and the Writing of Irish Church History.” In Mark Empey, Alan Ford, and Miriam Moffitt (eds.), The Church of Ireland and Its Past: History, Interpretation and Identity, 1–​18. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2017. Ford, Alan. “Who Went to Trinity? The Early Students of Dublin University.” In Helga Robinson-​Hammerstein (ed.), European Universities in the Age of Reformation and Counter Reformation, 53–​74. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998. Friedeburg, Robert von. “The Rise of Natural Law in the Early Modern Period.” In Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–​1800, 625–​41. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Fuller, Morris. The Life Letters & Writings of John Davenant, 1572–​1641, Lord Bishop of Salisbury. London: Methuen & Co., 1897. Gaffney, Declan. “The Practice of Religious Controversy in Dublin, 1600–​1641.” In W. J. Sheils and Diana Wood (eds.), The Churches, Ireland and the Irish. Oxford:  Basil Blackwell, 1989. Gatiss, Lee. “A Deceptive Clarity? Particular Redemption in the Westminster Standards.” The Reformed Theological Review 69, no. 3 (December 2010): 180–​96. Gatiss, Lee. “‘Shades of Opinion Within Generic Calvinism’: The Particular Redemption Debate at the Westminster Assembly.” The Reformed Theological Review 69, no. 2 (August 2010): 101–​18. George, Samuel. “The Emergence of Christology in the Early Church—​a Methodological Survey with Particular Reference to the Anti-​Heretical Polemics of Irenaeus of Lyons.” Asia Journal of Theology 54, no. 2 (October 1992): 219–​53. Godfrey, W. Robert. “Reformed Thought on the Extent of the Atonement to 1618.” Westminster Theological Journal 37, no. 2 (Winter 1975): 133–​71. Godfrey, W. Robert. “Tensions Within International Calvinism:  The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort 1618–​ 1619.” PhD dissertation, Stanford University, 1974. Green, Ian. The Christian’s ABC: Catechisms and Catechizing in England c. 1530–​1740. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Green, Ian. Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England. New  York:  Oxford University Press, 2000.

280 Bibliography Gribben, Crawford. “Defining the Puritans? The Baptism Debate in Cromwellian Ireland, 1654–​56.” Church History 73, no. 1 (March 2004): 63–​89. Gribben, Crawford. God’s Irishmen:  Theological Debates in Cromwellian Ireland. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Gribben, Crawford. John Owen and English Puritanism:  Experiences of Defeat. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Gribben, Crawford. The Puritan Millennium: Literature and Theology, 1550–​1682, rev. ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2008. Hampton, Stephen. Anti-​Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Hampton, Stephen. “Confessional Identity.” In Anthony Milton (ed.), The Oxford History of Anglicanism, Volume I:  Reformation and Identity, c.  1520–​1662, 210–​27. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. Hampton, Stephen. “The Manuscript Sermons of Archbishop John Williams.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 62, no. 4 (2011): 707–​25. Hampton, Stephen. “Richard Holdsworth and the Antinomian Controversy.” Journal of Theological Studies 62, no. 1 (April 2011): 218–​50. Hampton, Stephen. “Sin, Grace, and Free Choice in Post-​ Reformation Reformed Theology.” In Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–​1800, 228–​41. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Hart, Trevor A. “Irenaeus, Recapitulation and Physical Redemption.” In Trevor Hart and Daniel Thimell (eds.), Christ in Our Place:  The Humanity of God in Christ for the Reconciliation of the World:  Essays Presented to James Torrance, 152–​81. Exeter, UK: Paternoster Press, 1989. Hartog, Paul. “The ‘Rule of Faith’ and Patristic Biblical Exegesis.” Trinity Journal 28, no. 1 (2007): 65–​86. Haynes, Daniel. “The Transgression of Adam and Christ the New Adam: St. Augustine and St. Maximus the Confessor on the Doctrine of Original Sin.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 55, no. 3 (2011): 293–​317. Hazlett, W. Ian P. The Reformation in Britain and Ireland: An Introduction. Trowbridge, UK: T. & T. Clark International, 2003. Heal, Felicity. Reformation in Britain and Ireland. New  York:  Oxford University Press, 2003. Herzer, Mark A. “Adam’s Reward: Heaven or Earth.” In Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (eds.), Drawn into Controversie:  Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism, 162–​82. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Hiestand, Gerald. “Augustine and the Justification Debates:  Appropriating Augustine’s Doctrine of Culpability.” Trinity Journal 28, no. 1 (2007): 115–​39. Hoekema, Anthony A. “The Covenant of Grace in Calvin’s Teaching.” Calvin Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (November 1967): 133–​61. Horton, Michael S. Lord and Servant: A Covenant Christology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005. Hunt, Arnold. The Art of Hearing:  English Preachers and the Audiences, 1590–​1640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Hutchinson, Mark A. “Emergence of State in Elizabethan Ireland and England, c. 1575–​ 99.” Sixteenth Century Journal 45, no. 3 (2014): 659–​82.

Bibliography  281 Jefferies, Henry A. “The Early Tudor Reformations in the Irish Pale.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 52, no. 1 (July 2001): 34–​62. Jefferies, Henry A. “Elizabeth’s Reformation in the Irish Pale.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 66, no. 3 (July 2015): 524–​42. Jefferies, Henry A. The Irish Church and the Tudor Reformations. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2010. Jefferies, Henry A. “The Irish Parliament of 1560: The Anglican Reforms Authorised.” Irish Historical Studies 26, no. 102 (November 1988): 128–​41. Jefferies, Henry A. “The Reformation in Ireland: Interpretations Old and New.” History Ireland 24, no. 2 (March/​April 2016): 14–​17. Jeon, Jeong Koo. Covenant Theology:  John Murray’s and Meredith Kline’s Response to the Historical Development of Federal Theology in Reformed Thought. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1999. Johnson, H. Wayne. “The ‘Analogy of Faith’ and Exegetical Methodology: A Preliminary Discussion of Relationships.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31, no. 1 (March 1988): 69–​80. Johnson, John F. “Analogia Fidei as Hermeneutical Principle.” The Springfielder 36, no. 4 (March 1973): 249–​59. Jones, Mark. “The ‘Old’ Covenant.” In Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (eds.), Drawn into Controversie:  Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-​ Century British Puritanism, 183–​203. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Jones, Mark. Why Heaven Kissed Earth:  The Christology of Puritan Reformed Orthodox Theologian Thomas Goodwin (1600–​1680). Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Jovanović, Zdravko. “St. Irenaeus, Regula Fidei and the Ecclesiological Context of Interpretation.” Philotheos 13 (2013): 134–​40. Jue, Jeffrey. “The Active Obedience of Christ and the Theology of the Westminster Standards: A Historical Investigation.” In K. Scott Oliphint (ed.), Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification, 99–​130. Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2007. Kaufman, Peter Iver. “Augustine, Evil, and Donatism: Sin and Sanctity Before the Pelagian Controversy.” Theological Studies 51, no. 1 (1990): 115–​26. Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines, 4th ed. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1968. Kerr, Fergus. Review of God’s Grace and Human Action: “Merit” in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas by Joseph P. Wawrykow. Modern Theology 14, no. 1 (January 1998): 149–​51. Kolb, Robert, Irene Dingel, and L’Ubomír Batka (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. Korsten, Frans. “Thomas Baker and His Books.” Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 8, no. 5 (1985): 491–​513. Laato, Timo. “Justification: The Stumbling Block of the Finnish Luther School.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 72 (2008): 327–​46. Lane, Anthony N. S. “Calvin and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy.” In Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae, 233–​63. Geneva: Droz, 2004. Lane, Anthony N.  S. “Cardinal Contarini and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy (1541).” In Otmar Meuffels and Jürgen Bründl (eds.), Grenzgänge der Theologie, 163–​ 90. Münster: Lit, 2004. Lee, Brian J. Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology: Reformation Developments in the Interpretation of Hebrews 7–​10. Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009.

282 Bibliography Letham, Robert. “The Foedus Operum: Some Factors Accounting for Its Development.” Sixteenth Century Journal 14, no. 4 (1983): 457–​67. Letham, Robert. “‘In the Space of Six Days’: The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly.” Westminster Theological Journal 61 (1999): 149–​74. Letham, Robert. The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009. Lillback, Peter A. The Binding of God:  Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001. Lillback, Peter A. “The Continuing Conundrum: Calvin and the Conditionality of the Covenant.” Calvin Theological Journal 29, no. 1 (April 1994): 42–​74. Lillback, Peter A. “Ursinus’ Development of the Covenant of Creation:  A Debt to Melanchthon or Calvin?” Westminster Theological Journal 43, no. 2 (1981): 247–​88. Lim, Paul C.  H. Mystery Unveiled:  The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Littlejohn, W. Bradford, and Scott N. Kindred-​ Barnes (eds.). Richard Hooker and Reformed Orthodoxy. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Lotz-​ Heumann, Ute. “Confessionalisation in Ireland:  Periodisation and Character, 1534–​1649.” In Brendan Bradshaw and Peter Roberts (eds.), British Consciousness and Identity: The Making of Britain, 1533–​1707, 24–​53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Lynch, Michael J. “John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy.” PhD dissertation, Calvin Theological Seminary, 2019. MacDonald, Nathan. “Israel and the Old Testament Story in Irenaeus’s Presentation of the Rule of Faith.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 3, no. 2 (2009): 281–​98. MacLean, Donald John. James Durham (1622–​ 1658) and the Gospel Offer in its Seventeenth-​Century Context. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Marsden, George M. “Perry Miller’s Rehabilitation of the Puritans: A Critique.” Church History 39 (1970): 91–​105. Mason, William Monck. The History and Antiquities of the Collegiate and Cathedral Church of St. Patrick, Near Dublin, from Its Foundation in 1190, to the Year 1819: Comprising a Topographical Account of the Lands and Parishes Appropriated to the Community of the Cathedral, and to Its Members; Biographical Memoirs of Its Deans. Dublin:  W. Folds, 1820. McCafferty, John. “Protestants Prelates or Godly Pastors? The Dilemma of the Early Stuart Episcopate.” In Brendan Bradshaw and Peter Roberts (eds.), British Consciousness and Identity: The Making of Britain, 1533–​1707, 54–​72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. McCafferty, John. The Reconstruction of the Church of Ireland:  John Bramhall and the Laudian Reforms, 1633–​1641. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. McCosker, Philip, and Denys Turner (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to the Summa Theologiae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. McGiffert, Michael. “Crown, and Commons in Elizabethan Puritanism.” Journal of British Studies 20, no. 1 (Autumn, 1980): 32–​52. McGiffert, Michael. “Federal Theology.” In Francis J. Bremer and Tom Webster (eds.), Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America:  A Comprehensive Encyclopedia, 2:395–​96. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-​CLIO, 2006. McGiffert, Michael. “From Moses to Adam:  The Making of the Covenant of Works.” Sixteenth Century Journal 19, no. 2 (Summer 1988): 131–​55.

Bibliography  283 McGiffert, Michael. “Grace and Works:  The Rise of Covenant Divinity in Elizabethan Puritanism.” Harvard Theological Review 75, no. 4 (1982): 463–​502. McGiffert, Michael. “Henry Hammond and Covenant Theology.” Church History 74, no. 2 (June 2005): 255–​85. McGiffert, Michael. “The Perkinsian Moment of Federal Theology.” Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994): 117–​48. McGiffert, Michael. “William Tyndale’s Conception of Covenant.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 32, no. 2 (April 1981): 167–​84. McWilliams, David B. “The Covenant Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Recent Criticism.” Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991): 109–​24. Meigs, Samantha A. The Reformations in Ireland: Tradition and Confessionalism, 1400–​ 1690. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1997. Miller, Perry. The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century. New York: Macmillan Company, 1939. Milton, Anthony (ed.). The Oxford History of Anglicanism, Volume 1: Reformation and Identity, c. 1520–​1662. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. Minns, Denis. Irenaeus: An Introduction. Chippenham, UK: T. & T. Clark International, 2010. Møller, Jens G. “The Beginnings of Puritan Covenant Theology.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 14, no. 1 (1963): 46–​67. Moore, Jonathan D. English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007. Moore, Jonathan D. “The Extent of the Atonement: English Hypothetical Universalism Versus Particular Redemption.” In Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (eds.), Drawn into Controversie:  Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​ Century British Puritanism, 124–​61. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Muller, Richard A. After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition. Νew York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Muller, Richard A. “Calvin and the ‘Calvinists’: Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities Between the Reformation and Orthodoxy: Part One.” Calvin Theological Journal 30 (1995): 345–​75. Muller, Richard A. “Calvin and the ‘Calvinists’: Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities Between the Reformation and Orthodoxy:  Part Two.” Calvin Theological Journal 31 (1996): 125–​60. Muller, Richard A. Calvin and the Reformed Tradition:  On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012. Muller, Richard A. “Calvinist Thomism Revisited: William Ames (1576–​1633) and the Divine Ideas.” In Kathleen M. Comerford, Gary W. Jenkins, and W. J. Torrance Kirby (eds.), From Rome to Zurich, Between Ignatius and Vermigli: Essays in Honor of John Patrick Donnelly, SJ, 103–​20. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Muller, Richard A. Christ and the Decree:  Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008. Muller, Richard A. “Covenant and Conscience in English Reformed Theology:  Three Variations on a 17th Century Theme.” Westminster Theological Journal 42 (1980): 308–​34. Muller, Richard A. “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in Seventeenth-​ Century Reformed Orthodoxy.” Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994): 75–​101. Muller, Richard A. “Diversity in the Reformed Tradition:  A Historiographical Introduction.” In Michael A.  G. Haykin and Mark Jones (eds.), Drawn into

284 Bibliography Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism, 11–​30. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Muller, Richard A. “Divine Covenants, Absolute and Conditional: John Cameron and the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology.” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 17 (2006): 11–​56. Muller, Richard A. Divine Will and Human Choice: Freedom, Contingency, and Necessity in Early Modern Reformed Thought. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017. Muller, Richard A. “Duplex Cognitio Dei in the Theology of Early Reformed Orthodoxy.” Sixteenth Century Journal 10, no. 2 (1979): 51–​61. Muller, Richard A. “Fides and Cognitio in Relation to the Problem of Intellect and Will in the Theology of John Calvin.” Calvin Theological Journal 25 (1990): 207–​24. Muller, Richard A. “Not Scotist:  Understandings of Being, Univocity, and Analogy in Early-​Modern Reformed Thought.” Reformation and Renaissance Review 14, no. 2 (2012): 127–​50. Muller, Richard A. “Perkins’ a Golden Chaine:  Predestinarian System of Schematized Ordo Salutis.” Sixteenth Century Journal 9 (1978): 69–​81. Muller, Richard A. Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725. 2nd ed. 4 volumes. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003. Muller, Richard A. “Reformed Theology Between 1600–​1800.” In Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–​1800, 167–​78. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Muller, Richard A. “Scholasticism Protestant and Catholic: Francis Turretin on the Object and Principles of Theology.” Church History 55 (1986): 193–​205. Muller, Richard A. “Scholasticism, Reformation, Orthodoxy, and the Persistence of Christian Aristotelianism.” Trinity Journal (1998): 81–​96. Muller, Richard A. “The Spirit and the Covenant:  John Gill’s Critique of the Pactum Salutis.” Foundations 24, no. 1 (1981): 4–​14. Muller, Richard A. “Toward the Pactum Salutis: Locating the Origins of a Concept.” Mid-​ America Journal of Theology 18 (2007): 11–​65. Muller, Richard A. The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Muller, Richard A. “The Use and Abuse of a Document: Beza’s Tabula praedestinationis, the Bolsec Controversy, and the Origins of Reformed Orthodoxy.” In Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark (eds.), Protestant Scholasticism:  Essays in Reassessment, 33–​61. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2005; repr. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006. Murray, James. “After Bradshaw: The Debate on the Tudor Reformation in Ireland.” In Mark Empey, Alan Ford, and Miriam Moffitt (eds.), The Church of Ireland and Its Past: History, Interpretation and Identity, 266–​85. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2017. Murray, James. Enforcing the English Reformation in Ireland:  Clerical Resistance and Political Conflict in the Diocese of Dublin, 1534–​ 1590. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2009. Murray, James, Alan Ford, J. I. McGuire, et  al. “The Church of Ireland:  A Critical Bibliography, 1536–​1992.” Irish Historical Studies 28, no. 112 (1993): 345–​61. Nestingen, James Arne. “Justification by Faith in Luther’s Small Catechism.” Logia 16, no. 4 (2007): 15–​19. Nineham, Dennis. “Gottschalk of Orbais: Reactionary or Precursor to the Reformation?” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 40, no. 1 (1989): 1–​18.

Bibliography  285 Oberman, Heiko Augustinus. The Harvest of Medieval Theology:  Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism, rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI:  William B.  Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967. Osborn, Eric. Irenaeus of Lyons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Parnham, David. “Motions of Law and Grace:  The Puritan in the Antinomian.” Westminster Theological Journal 70 (2008): 73–​104. Patterson, W. B. William Perkins and the Making of a Protestant England. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Patterson, W. B. “William Perkins as Apologist for the Church of England.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 57, no. 2 (April 2006): 252–​69. Payne, Jon D. John Owen on the Lord’s Supper. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2004. Pederson, Randall J. Unity in Diversity:  English Puritans and the Puritan Reformation, 1603–​1689. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Perkins, Harrison. “Manuscript and Material Evidence for James Ussher’s Authorship of A Body of Divinitie (1645).” Evangelical Quarterly 89, no. 2 (2018): 133–​61. Perkins, Harrison. “Reconsidering the Development of the Covenant of Works:  A Study in Doctrinal Trajectory.” Calvin Theological Journal 53, no. 2 (November 2018): 289–​317. Perkins, Harrison. “The Westminster Assembly’s Probable Appropriation of James Ussher.” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 37, no. 1 (Spring 2019): 45–​63. Powicke, F. J. A Life of the Reverend Richard Baxter, 1615–​1691. London: Butler & Tanner Ltd., 1927. Questier, Michael. “Arminianism, Catholicism, and Puritanism in England During the 1630s.” The Historical Journal 49, no. 1 (March 2006): 53–​78. Rainbow, Jonathan H. The Will of God and the Cross: An Historical and Theological Study of John Calvin’s Doctrine of Limited Redemption. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 1990; repr. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2009. Raith, Charles, II. “Aquinas and Calvin on Merit, Part II: Condignity and Participation.” Pro Ecclesia 21, no. 2 (2012): 195–​210. Raith, Charles, II. “Calvin’s Critique of Merit, and Why Aquinas (Mostly) Agrees.” Pro Ecclesia 20, no. 2 (2011): 135–​66. Ranson, Guy H. “Augustine’s Account of the Nature and Origin of Moral Evil.” Review and Expositor 50, no. 3 (July 1953): 309–​22. Reist, Irwin W. “The Christology of Irenaeus.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 13, no. 4 (Fall 1970): 241–​51. Rolston, Holmes, III. John Calvin Versus the Westminster Confession. Richmond, VA: Westminster John Knox Press, 1972. Root, Michael. “Aquinas, Merit, and Reformation Theology After the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.” Modern Theology 20, no. 1 (January 2004): 5–​22. Schaff, Phillip (ed.). The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes. 6th ed. 3 volumes. New York: Harper, 1931; repr. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998. Shaw, Mark R. “Drama in the Meeting House: The Concept of Conversion in the Theology of William Perkins.” Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): 41–​72. Shaw, Mark R. “William Perkins and the New Pelagians: Another Look at the Cambridge Predestination Controversy of the 1590s.” Westminster Theological Journal 58 (1996): 267–​301. Skinner, Quentin. Visions of Politics, Volume 1: Regarding Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

286 Bibliography Spurr, John. The Post-​Reformation:  Religion, Politics and Society in Britain 1603–​1714. Harlow, UK: Pearson-​Longman, 2006. Stoever, William K.  B. “A Faire and Easie Way to Heaven”:  Covenant Theology and Antinomianism in Early Massachusetts. Middletown, CT:  Wesleyan University Press, 1978. Strange, Alan D. “The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the Westminster Assembly.” In Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (eds.), Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism, 31–​51. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Strehle, Stephen. Calvinism, Federalism, and Scholasticism:  A Study of the Reformed Doctrine of the Covenant. Bern: Peter Lang, 1988. Strehle, Stephen. “The Extent of the Atonement and the Synod of Dort.” Westminster Theological Journal 51, no. 1 (1989): 1–​23. Strehle, Stephen. “Universal Grace and Amyraldianism.” Westminster Theological Journal 51 (1989): 345–​57. Svensson, Manfred, and David VanDrunen (eds.). Aquinas Among the Protestants. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, 2018. Sweetnam, Mark S. “Defining Dispensationalism: A Cultural Studies Perspective.” Journal of Religious History 34, no. 2 (2010): 191–​212. Torrance, James B. “Calvin and Puritanism in England and Scotland-​Some Basic Concepts in the Development of ‘Federal Theology.” In Calvinus Reformator: His Contribution to Theology, Church and Society, 264–​86. Potchefstroom, SA: Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, 1982. Torrance, James B. “Covenant or Contract? A  Study of the Theological Background of Worship in Seventeenth Century Scotland.” Scottish Journal of Theology 23 (1970): 51–​69. Torrance, James B. “The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Westminster Theology.” In Alasdair I.  C. Heron (ed.), The Westminster Confession in the Church Today. Edinburgh: The St. Andrew Press, 1982. Torrance, Thomas F. Scottish Theology:  From John Knox to John McLeod Campbell. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996. Trinterud, Leonard J. “The Origins of Puritanism.” Church History 20, no. 1 (March 1951): 37–​57. Trinterud, Leonard J. “A Reappraisal of William Tyndale’s Debt to Martin Luther.” Church History 31 (March 1962): 24–​45. Trolander, Paul. Literary Sociability in Early Modern England:  The Epistolary Record. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2014. Trueman, Carl R. The Claims of Truth:  John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 1998. Trueman, Carl R. Grace Alone:  Salvation as a Gift from God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017. Trueman, Carl R. “Is the Finnish Line a New Beginning? A Critical Assessment of the Reading of Luther Offered by the Helsinki Circle.” Westminster Theological Journal 65 (2003): 231–​44. Trueman, Carl R. John Owen:  Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2007. Trueman, Carl R. Luther on the Christian Life:  Cross and Freedom. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015.

Bibliography  287 Trueman, Carl R. Luther’s Legacy:  Salvation and English Reformers 1525–​ 1556. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Trueman, Carl R. “The Necessity of the Atonement.” In Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (eds.), Drawn into Controversie:  Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism, 204–​22. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Trueman, Carl R. “Preachers and Medieval and Renaissance Commentary.” In Peter McCullough, Hugh Adlinton, and Emma Rhatigan (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Early Modern Sermon. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Trueman, Carl R. “Scripture and Exegesis in Early Modern Reformed Theology.” In Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–​1800, 179–​94. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Trueman, Carl R., and R. Scott Clark (eds.). Protestant Scholasticism:  Essays in Reassessment. Bletchley, UK:  Paternoster, 2005; repr. Eugene, OR:  Wipf & Stock, 2006. Tyacke, Nicholas. Anti-​ Calvinists:  The Rise of English Arminianism, c.  1590–​ 1640. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. Tyacke, Nicholas. “Archbishop Laud.” In Kenneth Fincham (ed.), The Early Stuart Church, 1603–​1642, 51–​70. Hong Kong: Macmillan Press, 1993. Tyacke, Nicholas. Aspects of English Protestantism c. 1530–​1700. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001. Van Asselt, Willem J. “Christ, Predestination, and Covenant in Post-​ Reformation Reformed Theology.” In Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–​1800, 213–​27. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Van Asselt, Willem J. “The Doctrine of Abrogations in the Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–​1669).” Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994): 101–​16. Van Asselt, Willem J. “Expromissio or Fideiusso? A  Seventeenth-​Century Theological Debate Between Voetians and Coccieans About the Nature of Christ’s Suretyship in Salvation History.” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 14 (2003): 37–​57. Van Asselt, Willem J. The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–​1669). Translated by Raymond A. Blacketer. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Van Asselt, Willem J. “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-​ Century Reformed Thought.” Westminster Theological Journal 64 (2002): 319–​35. Van Asselt, Willem J., with contributions by T. Theo J. Pleizier, Pieter L. Rouwendal, and Maarten Wisse. Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. Translated by Albert Gootjes. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010. VanDoodewaard, William. The Marrow Controversy and Seceder Tradition: Atonement, Saving Faith, and the Gospel Offer in Scotland (1718–​1799). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011. VanDrunen, David. Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms:  A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought. Grand Rapids, MI:  William B.  Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009. VanMaaren, John. “The Adam-​Christ Typology in Paul and Its Development in the Early Church Fathers.” Tyndale Bulletin 64, no. 2 (2013): 275–​97. Van Vliet, Jan. “Decretal Theology and the Development of Covenantal Thought:  An Assessment of Cornelis Graafland’s Thesis with a Particular View to Federal

288 Bibliography Architects William Ames and Johannes Cocceius.” Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001): 393–​420. Venema, Cornelis P. Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “the Other Reformed Tradition”? Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002. Venema, Cornelis P. “Recent Criticisms of the ‘Covenant of Works’ in the Westminster Confession of Faith.” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 9, no. 2 (1993): 165–​98. Von Rohr, John. “Covenant and Assurance in Early English Puritanism.” Church History 34, no. 2 (June 1965): 195–​203. Von Rohr, John. The Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Vos, Geerhardus. “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology.” In Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1980. Wallace, Dewey D., Jr. “The Doctrine of Predestination in the Early English Reformation.” Church History 43, no. 2 (June 1974): 201–​15. Wallace, Dewey D., Jr. “Puritan and Anglican: The Interpretation of Christ’s Descent into Hell in Elizabethan Theology.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 69 (1978): 248–​87. Waugh, Barry. “William Perkins: Augustine’s Protégé and Father of Puritan Theology.” Confessional Presbyterian 11 (2015). Weir, David A. The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-​Century Reformation Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. White, Peter. “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered.” Past and Present 101 (November 1983): 34–​54. Whiting, George W. “Pareus, the Stuarts, Laud, and Milton.” Studies in Philology 50, no. 2 (April 1953): 215–​29. Wicks, Jared. “Justification and Faith in Luther’s Theology.” Theological Studies 44, no. 1 (March 1983): 3–​29. Witt, William G. “Anglican Reflections on Justification by Faith.” Anglican Theological Review 95, no. 1 (Winter 2013): 57–​80. Woolsey, Andrew A. Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly. Grand Rapids, MI:  Reformed Heritage Books, 2012. Wright, Louis B. “William Perkins: Elizabethan Apostle of ‘Practical Divinity.’” Huntington Library Quarterly 3, no. 2 (Jan. 1940): 171–​96. Yost, John K. “A Reappraisal of How Protestantism Spread During the Early English Reformation.” Anglican Theological Review 60, no. 4 (1978): 237–​46.

Index Ames, William, 5n7, 134–​36, 139n59,  194–​95 analogy, doctrine of, 68–​73, 81–​83 Anselm of Canterbury, 168, 177–​78, 179, 182–​83, 189, 208, 234, 256 antinomianism, 23, 61, 76–​77, 100–​101,  141 Aquinas, Thomas, 5–​6, 43–​44, 53n43, 64–​73, 77, 78, 81, 82, 85, 88–​90, 97n68, 107, 109, 111, 115, 136–​37, 143, 177, 198, 254, 261 Arminianism, 128, 133, 154–​55, 192, 195, 216, 238 Arminius, Jacob, 62–​63, 194n119 Articles of Faith Irish Articles (1615), 9–​10, 27, 34–​35, 54, 58, 87, 94, 103, 113, 124–​25, 126, 143, 147, 152, 158, 216, 227, 252, 257, 258, 259 Thirty-​Nine Articles, 54, 125, 129, 157, 158, 214, 252 Westminster Confession of Faith, 9, 21, 44, 54, 72, 77, 87, 113, 125, 258 Atonement. See satisfaction Augustine, 57, 88, 132–​33, 135, 152–​55, 161   Baker, J. Wayne, 23, 42, 46, 116, 127, 141 Ball, John, 87, 111–​13 Ball, William, 31–​32 Barlow, Thomas, 33–​34, 257–​59 Barth, Karl/​Barthianism, 22, 23, 24, 55, 70, 82–​83,  91n27 Baxter, Richard, 11, 13, 106–​107, 192n110 Beach, J. Mark, 21, 74, 81–​82 Beeke, Joel, 61, 110 Bellarmine, Robert, 52–​53, 61, 65, 100, 213–​14, 222, 235 Bernard, Nicholas, 12, 18 Bernard of Clairvaux, 108 Biel, Gabriel, 231–​34

Book of Common Prayer, 8, 206–​207, 212, 224, 252 Book of Homilies, 214 Boran, Elizabethanne, 14, 17 Bradshaw, Brendan, 26–​27 Braun, Johannes, 105–​106 Bucer, Martin, 66n113 Bullinger, Heinrich, 23, 66n113 Burges, Cornelius, 9 Burgess, Anthony, 61, 72   Calvin, John, 124, 130, 135, 136, 149, 225, 246,  255–​56 Cambridge, 14, 30, 31, 133, 156 Emmanuel College, 18 St John’s College, 91 Sidney Sussex College, 30 Campbell, Ian W.S., 14, 142, 150, 260 Canny, Nicholas, 27 canon law. See law Capern, Amanda-​Louise, 13–​14, 45, 56, 123, 129, 141, 143, 163, 261 Cartwright, Thomas, 13–​14, 86, 88, 91–​95, 102, 112–​13, 123, 125, 216, 255 Catarino, Ambrogio, 4, 46, 81 Charles I, 30–​32, 125, 128–​29, 150–​51, 155–​56, 158, 160, 161, 164, 211, 219, 220, 222–​23, 234, 264 Charles the Great, 180 Christ, Jesus person of, 138n56, 168–​178, 185–​91, 233–​34,  236–​40 work of, 171–​205, 229, 233–​34, 235–​42 Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin, 12 Civil War, English, 12, 31–​34, 129, 160, 162, 164, 222–​23, 251 Clark, R. Scott, 19, 21, 25 Clary, Ian Hugh, 169 Cocceius, Johannes, 47, 76n174, 124 Collier, Jay, 133 Como, David, 251

290 Index conformism, 6–​8, 15–​16, 126–​30, 167–​68, 205–​207 conversion, 132, 215–​25, 251–​52, 259 covenant and gospel, 91–​94, 203–​204 of grace, 74–​76, 78, 88, 95, 112–​13, 115, 116–​24, 156, 162–​63, 179–​81, 201–​205, 210, 221–​22, 255, 257–​59 historiography of, 20–​26, 44–​48 and law, 4, 42, 44–​46, 50–​73, 116–​24,  242–​52 in medieval theology, 64, 111–​12,  231–​33 in patristic theology, 88, 174 and preaching, 215–​25 of redemption/​pactum salutis, 21–​22, 25–​26,  185–​86 and the Reformed tradition Covent Garden, 30, 59, 159–​60 Crabb, Joseph, 31–​32 creation, 11, 13 Cromwell, Oliver, 12, 206 Crooke, Samuel, 86, 94 Cunningham, Jack, 143, 164   Davenant, John, 9, 33, 106, 148, 193–​205 Denlinger, Aaron, 4, 46–​47, 99, 102 Dickson, David, 5, 185–​86 Donne, John, 12 donum concreatum, 60, 65, 73 donum superadditum, 49, 52–​53, 59, 63–​66, 73, 114n157, 115–​16 Dort, Synod of, 128, 133, 154, 161, 194–​95 Downame, George, 156–​57 Downame, John, 35–​36, 205   effectual calling, 130, 152, 160, 218, 224 election. See predestination Elizabeth I, 16, 223 Elrington, Charles, 29, 36, 148, 220n35 episcopacy, 7, 13, 16, 19, 141, 206, 260 eschatology, 41, 43, 75–​78, 81, 89–​91, 103, 174, 177, 254, 261   faith as condition, 193–​94, 201–​202 and conversion, 129, 130–​37, 215–​25 and the human faculties, 134–​37

and justification, 75, 78, 95n56, 114, 116, 120–​21, 203–​204, 227–​28, 231, 241–​44, 248–​51, 257 and law, 101, 120–​21 nature of, 67–​68, 120–​21, 129, 133, 135, 177, 200, 203–​204, 261–​63 Featley, Daniel, 236 Fenner, Dudley, 86, 93–​94 Fesko, J.V., 20, 22n98, 22n101, 24n111, 25, 42n2, 47, 60, 87, 110n128, 128n10, 143, 144n87, 144n88, 146n91, 161n161, 185n84, 186, 212n7, 246n131, 258n17 Ford, Alan, 2, 7, 16–​19, 20, 27, 33–​34, 36–​37, 132, 153–​54, 158–​59, 218, 259 Franciscans, 64, 112, 231  Gataker, Thomas, 76–​78, 189, 211, 235–​37 Geneva Bible, 262–​65 Gomarus, Franciscus, 56–​57, 124, 148n96 Goodwin, Thomas, 25, 74, 185–​87 Gottschalk of Orbais, 151–​58 Gower, Stanley, 31   Hampton, Stephen, 6–​7, 18, 43, 258 hell,  78–​80 Herle, Charles, 237 Herzer, Mark, 73–​74 Hildersham, Arthur, 33 Hooker, Richard, 205, 212, 223–​24 Hunt, Arnold, 32–​33, 161, 164   Ignatius of Antioch, 167 intellect, faculty of. See intellectualism; voluntarism intellectualism, 5–​6, 24, 37, 41, 54, 56, 66–​73, 81, 85, 97–​98, 127, 130–​40, 168, 186–​91, 197, 208, 210–​11, 217–​218, 232, 234, 238, 242, 247–​48, 250, 261–​63, 266 Irenaeus of Lyon, 182, 254, 256 on Adamic recapitulation, 173–​76, 178, 179, 208 on covenant, 88, 180 Irish Articles (1615). See articles of faith   James I, 11, 14, 51–​53, 128, 161, 202n148, 263 James II, 18 Jesuits, 66n113, 80, 131–​32

Index  291 Jones, Mark, 25, 61, 110, 185–​87 Junius, Franciscus, 61–​64, 67–​68 justification, doctrine of, 89–​90, 105, 107–​108, 124, 152, 187, 189–​91, 202–​204, 209–​11, 213–​15, 216, 225–​42, 242–​46, 250–​52, 257–​58   Knox, Jamie Blake, 18, 29 Knox, R. Buick, 13–​14   Lake, Peter, 133n32, 212, 223–​24, 250–​51 Laud, William, 8, 11, 18, 141, 211–​15 on justification, 213–​14 and law, 4, 42, 44–​46, 50–​73 and predestination, 128–​30, 156–​58,  164 and sacraments, 213–​15 law ability to keep, 49, 52–​53, 59–​66, 103–​116 and Adam, 50–​73, 103–​116 canon law, 7–​8, 14–​16, 52 and Christ, 171–​205, 225–​42 and conversion, 215–​25 and covenant, 4, 42, 44–​46, 50–​73, 116–​24,  242–​52 curse of, 78–​80 fulfillment of, 49, 51, 59–​80, 100, 104, 172, 178, 182–​87, 208, 219–​22,  232–​37 and gospel, 91–​94, 203–​204 and justification, 73–​78, 225–​42 and merit, 103–​116 moral law, 54–​58, 95–​97, 102, 120, 247,  257–​58 natural law, 5–​6, 42–​43, 54–​59 positive law, 54–​58, 97–​98 and reward, 73–​78 and sanctification, 246–​50 satisfaction of, 50–​73, 171–​205,  225–​42 as standard, 50–​73, 242–​52 Lee, Brian, 47, 123 Letham, Robert, 21, 102, 113–​14 Lincoln’s Inn, 12, 160, 238, 242 London, 150–​51, 160, 223, 233, 236–​37,  264–​65 Luther, Martin, 66n113, 108, 130, 131 Lynch, Michael, 9, 16–​17, 143, 202–​203, 204n154 

Mair, John, 66n113 Malone, William, 131–​32 McGiffert, Michael, 88, 124 Meigs, Samantha, 27 Melanchthon, Phillip, 66n113 Montagu, Richard, 132–​34, 153–​54 Moore, Jonathan, 16, 36, 148, 192n110, 200–​204 Muller, Richard, 22, 23, 37–​40, 42, 65, 82, 107, 127, 135–​37, 142, 144, 149, 166, 246   natural law. See law, natural   Oberman, Heiko, 231 Ockham, William of, 5, 72, 137, 232 Olevian, Casper, 25 ordo salutis, 242–​46 Owen, John, 11, 25, 111, 123–​24 Oxford Christ Church, 150 Oxford movement, 252 preaching/​teaching in, 29–​34, 52–​53, 55, 66n113, 67, 70, 71–​72, 79–​80, 82, 87–​88, 91, 95–​96, 105, 112, 118–​21, 133, 143–​44, 147, 159–​60, 162, 179–​80, 189–​90, 217–​20, 223, 234–​40, 249, 264 Queen’s College, 33–​34, 257–​58 St. John’s College, 215   Pactum Salutis. See covenant: of redemption Paraeus, David, 61, 65 Parliament, 7, 9, 12, 31, 125, 149, 158,  222–​23 Parr, Richard, 18 Patterson, W.B., 7, 15 Pelagianism/​semi-​Pelagianism, 64–​65, 90, 132, 153–​54, 157, 197, 231 Perkins, William, 5n9, 7, 15, 75–​76, 86, 88, 91, 94–​99, 102–​104, 117, 121–​25, 128, 135–​36, 156, 222, 255, 261 Piscator, Johannes, 124 predestination, 4, 23–​25, 28, 45–​48, 62–​63, 95–​96, 126–​65, 191–​94, 198, 200, 205, 208, 211, 222–​25, 243–​44,  250–​52

292 Index Puritanism, 2, 7–​8, 13–​16, 18–​19, 25–​26, 29, 61, 126–​30, 158, 168, 205–​208, 211–​12, 216, 223–​24, 251, 256–​57, 260–​66   Ramus, Peter/​ramism, 81–​82, 99, 101 reformation, 8–​9, 21–​22, 45, 166–​67, 256 in Ireland, 26–​29, 37, 107–​108, 157–​58 Regula Fidei/​Rule of Faith, 176, 180 repentance, 31, 134, 203, 223–​25, 226 Rivet, Andre, 56–​57 Rollock, Robert, 86, 91, 97, 99–​103, 110, 111, 121–​25, 255, 261 Rolston III, Holmes, 44, 110 Roman Catholicism, 8–​9, 15, 23, 28, 81–​82, 215, 230, 266 Anglo-​Catholicism,  252 Anti-​Catholicism, 15–​18, 50–​53, 59–​62, 65, 72–​73, 100–​101, 103–​108, 114–​115, 132, 167, 235, 254 doctrines of, 46, 49–​50, 50–​53, 59–​62, 70n139, 72–​73, 77, 100–​101, 114n157, 115, 222 royalism, 7, 12, 14, 18, 26, 31, 86, 141, 260–​61, 264   sacraments, 117n170, 120, 212–​13, 224–​25, 250, 252 baptism, 224–​25, 231, 250 communion/​Lord’s Supper, 8, 30, 214–​215, 217, 231 sanctification, doctrine of, 8, 152, 202, 209–​11, 214, 230, 242–​52 satisfaction, Christ’s extent of, 191–​205 and the law, 49, 51, 59–​80, 100, 104, 172, 178, 182–​87, 208, 219–​22, 232–​37 necessity of, 185–​91 Scotus, John Duns, 52–​53, 58, 68n122, 71–​72, 107, 135 Snoddy, Richard, 2, 16, 20, 33, 36, 80, 127, 129, 130, 143–​44, 146, 185, 187n94, 191n108, 192n110, 198n133, 199n137, 200, 201, 202, 205, 229–​ 30, 235–​36, 245–​46, 259, 261 Strehle, Stephen, 23–​24   Tertullian, 43, 88, 254 Torrance, J.B., 23, 44–​45, 110, 124–​25

Torrance, T.F., 44–​45, 76, 110, 124–​25 Travers, Walter, 13 Trent, Council of, 46, 132 Trinity College Dublin, 11, 12, 13, 17, 32, 34, 52, 82, 91, 235 Trinterud, Leonard, 22–​23 Trueman, Carl, 72, 111 Twisse, William, 55n55, 56, 76, 92–​94, 123, 148n96, 149, 156, 216, 222 Tyacke, Nicholas, 152–​53, 250–​51 Tyrell, James, 34   Ursinus, Zacharius, 46 Ussher, James areas of research, 11–​20 biographical issues, 11–​13 and preaching, 215–​25 published works of Answer to a Challenge Made by a Jesuite in Ireland, 50, 66n113, 80, 89–​90, 108–​109, 114, 131–​36, 164, 169, 180, 182 Body of Divinitie, 14, 19–​20, 30, 35–​36, 48, 49, 50, 53, 60, 67, 71, 72, 74, 76, 80, 89, 90, 91–​95, 109, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117n170, 118–​120, 122, 138, 139, 140, 143, 145, 161, 163, 184, 188, 189, 222, 241, 243, 244, 247, 248, 249, 255 Briefe Declaration of the Universalitie of the Church of Christ, 51, 53–​54, 133 Britannicarum ecclesiarum antiquitates, 12, 168 Correspondence of James Ussher, 8, 13, 30, 31, 33, 36, 55, 56, 57, 66, 67, 88, 89, 91, 93, 98, 133, 151, 154–​57, 183, 192, 194, 197, 198, 199 Discourse of the Religion Anciently Professed by the Irish and the British, 12, 151–​53, 157–​58, 168, 182 Eighteen Choice Sermons Preached in Oxford, 29–​32, 93, 115, 121, 132, 133, 134, 148, 217–​25, 226, 230, 231, 232, 235, 237, 244, 264 Gotteschalci et Predestinatianae Controversiae, 12, 151, 153–​57,  168

Index  293 Gravissimae quaestionis de Christianarum ecclesiarum, 12, 151, 168 Immanuel, 32, 114, 169, 180–​84 Polycarpi et Ignatii Epistolae, 151, 167 Principles of Christian Religion, 32–​33, 34, 48, 49, 53, 59, 72, 80, 90, 101, 109, 112, 114, 115, 117, 121, 130, 138, 139, 140, 145, 159, 160, 163, 169, 181, 182, 184, 188, 222, 228, 229, 239, 241, 244, 247, 249 Soveraignes Power, and the Subjects Duty, 150 Speech Delivered in the Castle Chamber at Dublin, 150

  Van Dixhoorn, Chad, 189 Venema, Cornelis, 23

Vines, Richard, 188–​89 Voetius, Gisbertus, 116 voluntarism, 5–​6, 24, 55–​58, 68–​70, 72, 83, 97–​98, 102, 130–​37, 186–​91, 197, 232,  261–​63 Vossius, Gerhardus Johnannes, 153–​57   Ward, Samuel, 133, 155–​56 Weir, David, 44–​47, 124 Westminster Assembly, 9–​12, 19, 35, 76–​77, 92, 110, 125, 156, 188, 235–​37, 257, 258 will, faculty of. See intellectualism; voluntarism Woolsey, Andrew, 19–​20, 21, 23, 36, 60, 87, 88n11, 92n36, 93–​94, 98–​99, 115, 122   Zanchi, Jerome, 71–​72