https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2336-9739
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article examines how Samuel Rutherford, a leading Reformed theologian in seventeenth-century Scotland, discussed Adam’s obedience and merit within the doctrine of the covenant of works and underscored grace as given by God’s free will. Rutherford utilised the late medieval Augustinian Thomas Bradwardine’s voluntarist thought on grace and ethics and highlighted the prevenient nature of grace. The distinctive features of Rutherford’s covenant of works stem from his rejection of the Arminian elevation of human ability and imposition of necessity on God’s ad extra activities by binding these activities with divine goodness and love. Thus, Rutherford’s doctrine of the pre-fall covenant was shaped by anti-Arminian and anti-Pelagian concerns. To pursue this polemic, two late mediaeval traditions of Bradwardinian Augustinianism and God’s covenantal acceptance eventually converged in the development of Rutherford’s covenant of works.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on my MTh dissertation, completed as part of the Theology in History course at the University of Edinburgh. An earlier iteration of this article was presented as a paper at The Scottish Universities Church History and Theology Conference in Tulliallan in September 2019. I extend my sincere gratitude to Dr. Simon J. G. Burton and Adam Quibell for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Concerning Rutherford’s life, education, and various aspects of his thought, see Coffey, British Revolutions. The most recent biography on Rutherford was provided in Sturdy, Freedom from Fatalism, 35–72.
2 Coffey, British Revolutions, 188–224.
3 Rutherford, Letters, 141.
4 Rutherford’s other Latin works are Disputatio Scholastica de Divina Providentia (1649) and Examen Arminianismi (1668). Concerning his international reputation, see Sturdy, Freedom from Fatalism, 19.
5 Coffey, British Revolutions, 121–23.
6 Spurlock, Cromwell and Scotland, 94; Lee, “Reformed yet Catholic,” 186–89.
7 Fesko, Covenant of Works, 55–56.
8 Muller, After Calvin, 182–83; Perkins, Catholicity, 41.
9 Perkins, Catholicity, 49–73.
10 Fesko, Covenant of Works, 11–31.
11 Oberman, Forerunners, 132–39; Oberman, Harvest of Medieval Theology, 43–45, 170, 190, 193; Courtenay, “Covenant and Causality,” 116–19; Oakley, Omnipotence, Covenant & Order, 84–86; Oakley, “Absolute and Ordained Power”.
12 Strehle, Calvinism, 1–3.
13 Ibid., 2, 306, 314–18, 387, 391–92.
14 Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 63–64, 141–291.
15 Ibid., 216–44.
16 Ibid., 193–291.
17 Perkins, Catholicity, 82, 85.
18 Hoffmann, “Intellectualism and Voluntarism,” 414; Muller, Grace and Freedom, 54–56.
19 Hoffmann, “Intellectualism and Voluntarism,” 415–16, 419, 421, 423–24.
20 Muller, Grace and Freedom, 82. The diversity also suggests that using a specific medieval theologian’s idea does not imply complete adherence to that theologian’s thought. See, Van Asselt, Martin Bac, and te Velde, Reformed Thought on Freedom, 24–27.
21 Sturdy, Freedom from Fatalism, 317.
22 Broadie, Shadow of Scotus, 35, 42–44, 46–47.
23 Scotus, Will and Morality, 136, 141–42.
24 Scotus, Ordinatio III. dist.37 (271–91). Its translation can be found in Scotus, Will and Morality, 198–207; Broadie, “Shadow of Scotus,” 38–40, 50; Ragland, “Scotus on the Decalogue,” 67–68; Vos, Philosophy of Scotus, 440–46, 610–11.
25 Burton, “Rutherford’s ‘Euthyphro Dilemma’,” 134; Sturdy, Freedom from Fatalism, 171–74.
26 Baschera, “Witnessing to the Calvinism,” 433–46.
27 Rule, Just and Modest Reproof, 15; Toit, “Rule, Gilbert” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography online (= ODNB).
28 Burton, “Rutherford’s ‘Euthyphro Dilemma’”; Burton, “Disputing Providence”; Goudriaan, “Rutherford”; Sturdy, Freedom from Fatalism.
29 Oberman, Thomas Bradwardine; Oberman, Forerunners, 19; Oberman, “Headwaters,” 71–88; Steinmetz, Luther and Staupitz; James, Vermigli and Predestination, 106–50; James, “Confluence and Influence,” 182–83; Anderas, “Luther, Augustinianism, and Augustine,” in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion.
30 Oberman, Thomas Bradwardine, 43–49.
31 Oberman, Forerunners, 139.
32 Strehle, Calvinism, 190; Fesko, Covenant of Works, 57.
33 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, 36.
34 Ibid., 35.
35 Burton, “Disputing Providence,” 132–33.
36 Arminius, Opera Theologica, 32–33; Arminius, Works, 3:153.
37 Arminius, Opera Theologica, 32–33.
38 Fesko, Covenant of Works, 45–58.
39 Ahn, “Covenant in Conflict,” 111–12.
40 Hooker, Paterne of Perfection, 48, 217.
41 Ibid., 61–64.
42 Hooker, Application of Redemption, 25.
43 Hooker, Paterne of Perfection, 8, 37, 110.
44 Rollock, Gods Effectual Calling, 7–9; Fesko, Covenant of Works, 33–44; Letham, “Foedus Operum,” 457; Denlinger, “Robert Rollock,” 199–200; Denlinger, “Introduction,” 11; Mullan, Scottish Puritanism, 184; Kirk, “Rollock, Robert,” in ODNB online.
45 Rollock, Gods Effectual Calling, 7.
46 Rollock, Ephesios, 46; Rollock, Gods Effectual Calling, 194–95.
47 Rollock, Gods Effectual Calling, 194–95.
48 Perkins, Catholicity, 90.
49 Fesko, Covenant of Works, 99–104; Perkins, Catholicity, 74.
50 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, 19.
51 Coffey, British Revolutions, 31–32, 67; Beeke, Duplex Regnum Christi, 190–91.
52 Perkins, Catholicity, 100–101.
53 Ibid., 64–73.
54 McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 126.
55 Aquinas, Summa theologica, I q.95 a.1 resp, I q.100 a.1 resp; Macdonald, “Original Justice,” 116; McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 126–27.
56 Rimini, Gregorii Ariminensis OESA Lectura, d.29. q.1, a.1 (104 K-L); Leff, Gregory of Rimini, 169–72. This Augustinian view on the necessity of God’s special help after the fall was adopted by Vermigli. See Burton, “Peter Martyr Vermigli,” 37–52.
57 Scotus, Ordinatio II. dist.29 q.1 (306): ‘voluntas in puris naturalibus habet iustitiam originalem’.
58 Scotus, Ordinatio III. dist.27 (69, 72, 80). Translation is cited from Scotus, Will and Morality, 281; Muller, “Donum Superadditum” in Dictionary, 98–99.
59 Cross, Duns Scotus, 96–97; Horton, Justification, 1:138–39.
60 Bradwardine, De Causa Dei, lib. 2 cap. 9 (498–9); Leff, Gregory of Rimini, 169–72.
61 Horton, Justification, 1:138–39.
62 Both Aquinas and Hooker distinguished the image of God in the natural state of Adam from the image given to him as grace. See, Aquinas, Summa theologica, I q.93 a 3–4; Dauphinais, “Loving the Lord,” 250–52; Hooker, Paterne of Perfection, 6–191. Concerning the human state after the fall, Hooker’s view aligns more closely with Rimini than with Aquinas, as he highlights Christ’s aid through grace in enabling every act of human obedience. See, Hooker, Paterne of Perfection, 188–91, 213–20.
63 Rollock, Gods Effectual Calling, 8; Cross, Duns Scotus, 96–97; Fesko, Covenant of Works, 100.
64 Cf. Perkins, Catholicity, 65.
65 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, 36.
66 Rollock, “Some Questions,” 23–24.
67 Rollock, “On Good Works,” 81–83.
68 McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 160–63; Horton, Justification, 1:111–12.
69 McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 164–65. For example, while Scotus believed that the human obligation to love God above all things could never be altered, Ockham taught God could have ordered humans to hate him, as will be discussed later.
70 Holcot, “Lectures,” 144; Biel, “Circumcision,” 173.
71 Rollock, “On Good Works,” 81–82.
72 Perkins, Catholicity, 103, 108–9, 114.
73 Ibid., 109–11.
74 Ball, Covenant of Grace, 7–10, 25–26; Perkins, Catholicity, 111–12.
75 Ball, Covenant of Grace, 7–8.
76 Ibid., 9–10.
77 Hooker, Paterne of Perfection, 216–19.
78 Arminius, Opera Theologica, 32–33; Arminius, Works, 3:157–61.
79 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, 178, 181, 195–96.
80 Ibid., 43.
81 Ibid., 40.
82 Ibid., 40.
83 Ibid., 40–41.
84 Ibid., 41.
85 Ibid., 43.
86 Perkins, Catholicity, 103–7.
87 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, 22–23.
88 Fesko, Covenant of Works, 55–56.
89 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, 22–23.
90 van Leeuwen, “Introduction.”
91 Arminius, Works, 1:589–91.
92 Muller, “Scientia Dei” in Dictionary, 324–36.
93 Burton, “Disputing Providence,” 128.
94 Molina, On Divine Foreknowledge, disp 52. 9 (168)
95 Richard, Supremacy of God, 90–91, 227–28.
96 Mullan, Scottish Puritanism, 215; Richard, Supremacy of God, 17.
97 Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 102–3, 167, 182.
98 Muller, “Divine Covenants,” 11–36; Mullan, Scottish Puritanism, 217–18, 224–26; Denlinger, “Men of Gallio,” 58.
99 Baillie, Ladensium Autokatakrisis, 11.
100 Mullan, “Masked Popery,” 160; Mullan, Scottish Puritanism, 208–43; Richard, Supremacy of God, 222–33.
101 Denlinger, “Scottish Hypothetical Universalism.”
102 Burton, “Disputing Providence,” 129–34.
103 Ibid., 128–29.
104 Ibid., 130–31.
105 Ibid., 131.
106 Denlinger, “Aberdeen Doctors,” 287–88.
107 Ibid., 288.
108 Burton, “Disputing Providence,” 132. Muller noted that Antonius Walaeus (1573–1639) utilised the scientia media when refuting Socinians, which shows that the use of middle knowledge per se does not necessarily mean a deviation from the Reformed tradition. See, Muller, God, Creation, and Providence, 155.
109 Burton, “Disputing Providence,” 132–39.
110 Rutherford, Letters, 275; Richard, Supremacy of God, 9.
111 Coffey, British Revolutions, 47–49, 142.
112 Sturdy, Freedom from Fatalism, 104–14, 195–96, 247–48.
113 Richard, Supremacy of God, 100.
114 Muller, “Divine Covenants,” 34.
115 Arminius, Works, 1:560–62.
116 Sturdy, Freedom from Fatalism, 104–14.
117 Sibbald, “Holinesse to the LORD,” 115–19.
118 Sibbald, “Holinesse to the LORD,” 113, 118; Burton, “Disputing Providence,” 135.
119 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, 42–43.
120 Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 3:490.
121 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, 25–26.
122 Ibid., 31.
123 Ibid., 32–33.
124 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, 26–27. Concerning the Arminian view on the human will’s capacity in the postlapsarian state, see Richard, Supremacy of God, 169–73.
125 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, 32.
126 Arminius, Works, 3:195.
127 Yang, “Scotus’ Voluntarist Approach”; Putt, “Foundational Efficiency of Love.”
128 Scotus, Ordinatio IV. dist.15 q.1 (61–65): ‘ergo lapsus noster posse sanari alia via quam per incarnationem et passionem Christi. … de ordinata potentia non est possibile satisfieri Deo nisi in virtute passionis Christi.’
129 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, 34; Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 3:495–97; Richard, Supremacy of God, 135.
130 Muller, Christ and the Decree, 50, 61.
131 Richard, Supremacy of God, 135–38.
132 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, 197. As Rutherford’s doctrine of the pre-fall covenant utilised Bradwardine’s voluntarist view, the Christocentric emphasis of his pre-fall covenant shows that Strehle’s argument that the voluntarist impact on covenant theology undermined the Reformation emphasis on Christ should be revisited.
133 Ibid., 65.
134 Ibid., 56–57.
135 It is noteworthy that Rutherford, in his consideration of the doctrine of divine providence and the scientia media, found a resemblance between the Jesuit and Arminian perspectives, characterising their understanding as ‘Jesuit-Arminian providence’ (providentiam Jesuitico-Arminianam). See, Rutherford, Exercitationes, 1.5.6 (109).
136 Burton, “Disputing Providence,” 133.
137 Sibbald, “Holinesse to the LORD,” 120–21.
138 Burton, “Disputing Providence,” 132–33. Rutherford’s view on God’s predetermination was also shared and cited by Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676). See, Van Asselt, Martin Bac, and te Velde, Reformed Thought on Freedom, 167.
139 Baschera, “Witnessing to the Calvinism,” 436.
140 Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 36.
141 Oberman, Masters of the Reformation, 65.
142 Muller, “Facere Quod in Se” in Dictionary, 118; Oberman, “Facientibus Quod in Se,” 325–37.
143 For this issue, see Wood, “Ockham’s Repudiation of Pelagianism,” 350–66, and Oberman, Forerunners, 124–38.
144 Lillback, Binding of God, 47–48; McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 156–68.
145 Lillback, Binding of God, 48–49; McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 158–63.
146 McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 163–67.
147 McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 164–65.
148 Oberman, Forerunners, 135; Leff, Bradwardine and the Pelagians, 13; Baschera, “Witnessing to the Calvinism,” 433.
149 Oberman, Forerunners, 133–34; Oberman, Thomas Bradwardine, 44.
150 Oberman, “Facientibus Quod in Se,” 325–30.
151 Oberman, Thomas Bradwardine, 29; Oberman, Forerunners, 132–33. Oberman noted that Bradwardine further criticised those who taught determinism, which can also be found in Holcot’s thought. See, Oberman, Thomas Bradwardine, 29, 45–46.
152 Baschera, “Witnessing to the Calvinism,” 434.
153 Ibid., 439–40.
154 Twisse, Vindiciae gratiae, Praefatio, sect. 2, Resp. 1: “Thomas de Bradwardina, qui inter Scholasticos Theologos eminet tanquam inter ignes Luna minores”. His use of Bradwardine can also be seen in Twisse, Dissertatio De Scientia. Concerning Twisse’s participation in the editorial work, see Baschera, “Witnessing to the Calvinism,” 440–41, 445.
155 Hampton, Grace and Conformity, 38, 66, 83, 95, 120, 134–35, 301–2.
156 Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 56–57.
157 Rutherford, Peaceable Plea, 215.
158 Burton, “Disputing Providence,” 136–37.
159 Rutherford, Disputatio Scholastica, preface; Burton, “Disputing Providence,” 136–37.
160 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, 22–47.
161 Ibid., 23.
162 Oberman, Thomas Bradwardine, 155–56, 163–34; Leff, Bradwardine and the Pelagians, 75, 77.
163 Bradwardine, De Causa Dei, lib.1 cap.39 (343): ‘nullus causaliter & antecedenter meretur de congruo quicquam boni a Deo … nullus meretur condigne quicquam ab alio, qui nihil prius facit pro eo … Nam opus proprium laborantis debet mercedem praecedere tempore vel natura’.
164 Bradwardine, De Causa Dei, lib.1 cap.39 (325); Also see, Oberman, Thomas Bradwardine, 150–51.
165 Sylwanowicz, Contingent Causality, 213–16; Burton, Hallowing of Logic, 187.
166 Oberman, Thomas Bradwardine, 78.
167 Burton, Hallowing of Logic, 186–87.
168 Scotus, Lectura I. dist.39 q.5 (496): ‘Unde si ponitur voluntatem esse tantum in uno instanti, libere vult, et non ‘libere vult’ nisi quia potest nolle. Et ideo vera est in sensu divisionis ‘voluntas volens in a, potest esse nolens in a’.’ The translation was cited from Duns Scotus, Contingency and Freedom: Lectura I 39, 122 (the later quotation marks mine). It was Scotus’ innovation to understand this kind of compound proposition synchronically, not diachronically. See, Beck, Gisbertus Voetius, 380–82, 456.
169 Scotus, Lectura I. dist.40 q.1 (511–13); Vos, Theology of Scotus, 281.
170 Sylwanowicz, Contingent Causality, 210–19.
171 Bradwardine, De Causa Dei, lib.2 cap.28 (569): ‘Decendum, quod voluntas dicitur habere dominium sui actus, non per exclusionem causae primae,sed causa prima non ita agit in voluntate, vt eam de necessitate ad vnum determinet, sicut determinat naturam, & ideo determinatio actus relinquitur in potestate rationis & voluntatis’.
172 Ibid., lib.1 cap.39 (325): ‘si quis de congruo primam gratiam mereatur, hoc est priusquam habeat gratiam saltem prioritate naturae’.
173 Rutherford, Disputatio Scholastica, cap.4. 19 (42).
174 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, 23; Bradwardine, De Causa Dei, lib.1 cap.39 (343).
175 Useful summaries of recent scholarship on this issue can be seen in Kim, “Francis Turretin,” 26–29; Muller, Divine Will, 19–45; Sturdy, Freedom from Fatalism, 27–29. Based on Antonie Vos’ research on Scotus’ contribution to the medieval thought on contingency and freedom, Willem J. van Asselt, Andreas J. Beck, J. Martin Bac, and Dolf T. te Velde noted the impact of the Scotist idea of synchronic contingency on the Reformed Orthodoxy, whose doctrine of freedom of the will, according to these scholars, could never be a sort of determinism nor compatibilism. See, Vos, Philosophy of Scotus, 611; Van Asselt, Martin Bac, and te Velde, Reformed Thought on Freedom, 28–43, 234. Against this understanding, Paul Helm rejected the significant influence of the idea of synchronic contingency on the Reformed Orthodoxy and underscored that ‘a compatibilistic understanding’ of human freedom can be seen in Reformed Orthodox theologians such as Francis Turretin. Helm, “Reformed Thought on Freedom,” 205–7. Joining this debate, Oliver Crisp demonstrated a libertarian understanding of this doctrine in the Reformed tradition in the early modern era. See, Crisp, Deviant Calvinism, 75–96.
176 Muller, Divine Will, 189, 214.
177 Burton, “Disputing Providence,” 132–33; Sturdy, Freedom from Fatalism, 316–18.
178 Boersma, Heavenly Participation, 68–83.
179 Ibid., 92.
180 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, 24.
181 Bradwardine, De Causa Dei, lib.1 cap.39 (345).
182 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, 24; Bradwardine, De Causa Dei, lib.1 cap.39 (345).
183 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, 24; Bradwardine, De Causa Dei, lib.1 cap.39 (345).
184 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, 24.
185 Bradwardine, De Causa Dei, lib.1 cap.39 (345): ‘Potentialiter vero sive habitualiter debere intelligo quenquam beneficiatum ex beneficio praeaccepto, habere obligationem in potentia & in habitu ad aliquid faciendum’.
186 Bradwardine, De Causa Dei, lib.1 cap.39 (345): ‘sic quaelibet rationalis creatura tenetur Deo per omnia quantum potest, scilicet si velit exigere hoc ab ea’.
187 Burton, “Rutherford’s ‘Euthyphro Dilemma,’” 134.
188 Oberman, Harvest of Medieval Theology, 90; Slotemaker and Witt, Robert Holcot, 31–37.
189 VanDrunen, Natural Law, 52.
190 Leff, Bradwardine and the Pelagians, 221.
191 Burton, “Rutherford’s ‘Euthyphro Dilemma,’” 132–35; Sturdy, Freedom from Fatalism, 171–74.
192 Oberman, Thomas Bradwardine, 59–60.
193 Bradwardine, De Causa Dei, lib.1 cap.21 (231): ‘Est enim aliqua prima ratio in Deo necessaria absolute, prior naturaliter voluntate sua, sicut forsitan Deum esse, vel Deum esse veracem seu veritatem’.
194 Bradwardine, De Causa Dei, lib.1 cap.21 (231): ‘Si enim sequatur ex illo, & non necessario, hoc est per aliquod medium contingens, puta per voluntatem divinam … Quare videtur quod ista, Deus est Dominus huius rei, sit rationabilis mixtim’.
195 Bradwardine, De Causa Dei, lib.1 cap.21 (231).
196 Rutherford, Disputatio Scholastica, 332–35.
197 Burton, “Rutherford’s ‘Euthyphro Dilemma,’” 132–35.
198 Sturdy, Freedom from Fatalism, 174.
199 Torrance, “Covenant or Contract?,” 66, 70; Fergusson, “Predestination: A Scottish Perspective,” 465–66.
200 Coffey, British Revolutions, 133, 137–38; Ahn also underscored the gracious character of Rutherford’s covenant of grace and his covenant of redemption. See, Ahn, “Covenant in Conflict,” 74, 86, 101.
201 Richard, Supremacy of God, 155, 179n176.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Jaekook Lee
Jaekook Lee recently finished his PhD in the history of Christianity at the University of Edinburgh. He holds a Master of Theology with Distinction from the same university, which he completed in 2018. Prior to that, he achieved a Master of Divinity with Distinction from Chongshin University in Seoul in 2015. In 2010, he graduated with First Class Honours from Konkuk University in Seoul, earning a Bachelor of Science degree. His research interests primarily revolve around the early modern Reformed tradition and its medieval sources, particularly exploring ecclesiology in relation to anthropology, piety, and spiritual life. He is currently an associate pastor of Seegwang Presbyterian Church in South Korea.