Our Great Question: The Catholicity of the Westminster Divines in the Controversy over Justification
This article originated as a theology paper written as part of my studies with Union Theological College in Spring 2026.
In 1643, the Solemn League and Covenant committed Parliament to reform religion in England and Ireland “according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches”.[1] Far from being an unwanted methodology imposed by the political class, the Westminster divines wholeheartedly embraced this approach. When writing to continental churches in 1644, they twice stated they desired “the nearest conformity to the best Reformed Churches”.[2] This commitment to conform to a broader Reformed consensus is one important way that the Westminster divines demonstrated catholicity.
This assignment will critically discuss how this commitment was evident during the debates at the Westminster Assembly. It focuses on the doctrine of justification, which John Lightfoot describes in his journal as “our great question” and “great scripple”.[3] Furthermore, Chad Van Dixhoorn notes these deliberations were “dominated by some of the oldest, best educated men in the assembly”.[4] As a result, they provide a suitably significant case study. After briefly outlining the context, this assignment argues that the divines demonstrated their commitment to conform to the Reformed consensus through (1) allusions to historic authors, (2) alignment with previous confessions, and (3) adoption of particular terms.
Context to the Controversy
In the late sixteenth century, a significant controversy erupted over Johannes Piscator’s views on justification. In summary, Piscator limited justification to remission of sin and denied it included the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.[5] This created a “firestorm of controversy” within the continental Reformed community.[6] As a result, when the Assembly came to review Article 11 of the Thirty-Nine Articles, there was an “avalanche of debate.”[7] This lasted for 14 sessions and generated significant heat. It was the only time during the Assembly that divines raised accusations of popery and heresy.[8] The controversy centred on whether justification involves the imputation of Christ’s active obedience or only his passive obedience. Nevertheless, despite their sharp disagreements, it is remarkable that throughout the debate all parties displayed the same shared spirit of catholicity.
Catholicity in the Controversy
(1) Allusions to historic authors
The first way the Westminster divines demonstrated catholicity was the repeated citation of historic authors. Van Dixhoorn points out “members refer constantly to scripture – almost five hundred times in the approximately 280 speeches on justification surviving in the assembly’s minutes.”[9] Nevertheless, analysis of Van Dixhoorn’s register of citations also shows almost one hundred references to historic authors in these speeches.[10] As Letham comments, “long lists of authorities were trotted out in support of various arguments.”[11] Fathers like Jerome, Augustine and Bernard, reformers such as Luther, Osiander and Calvin, and writers from early Reformed orthodoxy including Franciscus Gomarus, John Forbes, and Theodore Beza were cited.[12] Some such citations were negative, linking views to individuals rejected by the Reformed churches. For example, in Daniel Fealtey’s concluding remarks, he positively cites Clement, Chrysostom, and Augustine to establish the imputation of active obedience, as well as stressing that both Arminius and Socinus rejected aspects of this doctrine, along with papists and antinomians.[13]
Unsurprisingly, given most divines supported imputing active obedience, the citations were generally made to promote this perspective. However, catholicity was evident on all sides. For example, Thomas Gataker, the most outspoken opponent of active obedience, tried to distinguish his views from those of Piscator, who was censured by the continental churches, as well as distance himself from Socinus.[14] Further, while Gataker accepted his understanding of remission conflicted with the French and Belgic confessions, he showed his underlying catholicity by supporting it with “a barrage of authorities from Athanasius, Calvin, Junius, and Gomarus”.[15] Likewise, Richard Vines, Gataker’s most vocal supporter, at one point admitted that he felt torn between text and tradition. While he understood “the current of Scripture” to only support the imputation of passive obedience, he was hesitant to advocate this view against “the minds of so many learned men”.[16] As a result, even divines who denied the imputation of active obedience did not seek to do so regardless of the witness of history, or beyond “the nearest conformity to the best Reformed Churches.”
(2) Alignment with previous confessions
The Westminster divines also demonstrated catholicity by aligning themselves with the best Reformed confessions. For example, the Westminster Confession explicitly rejects the idea of infused righteousness, against the Council of Trent, as well as Arminius’ understanding of faith as foundational for justification.[17] In this way, the divines stood alongside other momentous Protestant confessions, such as the Formula of Concord and Synod of Dort.[18] This commitment to confessional conformity can also be seen in more subtle ways. For example, while the Westminster Confession views justification as the first blessing of salvation, the Larger Catechism considers it under union with Christ, echoing the perspective of the Second Helvetic Confession, Scots Confession, and Irish Articles.[19] This confessional consciousness was also evident during the debate over imputation. While Gataker admitted that the Second Helvetic Confession explicitly taught the imputation of active obedience, he tried to argue that it was alone in doing so among Reformed confessions. As a result, he urged the divines to follow the overall consensus of the other confessions by leaving this issue unstated.[20] Therefore, on the rare occasion that explicit wording from a previous confession was challenged, there was still a shared commitment to catholicity.
Despite Gataker’s arguments, he was unable to persuade the Assembly. An important consideration appears to have been the response that Piscator received from the continental churches, which Charles Herle highlighted.[21] The French synods of Gap, Privas and Tonneins censured him and called for others to do the same, asserting that Christ’s obedience was “done entirely vicariously and as our substitute.”[22] The Irish Articles also excluded his views and affirmed Christ’s imputed active obedience. [23] Gataker’s arguments were ultimately too similar to those censured by “the best Reformed churches”. Near the end of the debate, William Gouge seemed to speak for many when concluding that the imputation of active obedience “is an antient doctrine & a constant & universall doctrine, &c. Counsells & sinods, church of England in the homily. Church of Scotland & Ireland. Sinod of Phrance, Palatine, Be[l]gic, Bohemia.” John Ley immediately agreed, desiring to bring it to a vote, stating there was, “Good company in this opinion. Divers confessions, and Calvin”.[24] As Van Dixhoorn concludes, “In the final analysis, the accounting of sinners as righteous was far too theologically, historically, and polemically significant for the majority in the assembly to reach any compromise”.[25]
(3) Adoption of particular terms
Finally, the divines demonstrated their catholicity by the terms they adopted. Given the overwhelming support for the imputation of active obedience, it is surprising this language was not included in the revision of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Westminster Confession or Larger Catechism. Instead, they use the terms “whole obedience” and “obedience and satisfaction of Christ”.[26] The reason for this has been heavily disputed. Given that the prolocutor William Twisse began the debate by warning against adopting terms that would unfairly brand minsters as antinomians, and Gataker later pleaded for it not to be made a litmus test for ministry, more open language was possibly adopted to allow for different views. While Letham admits “any conclusions on this can only be speculative”, he argues this is why “an element of ambiguity is retained”.[27] Nevertheless, while the above is possible, J. V. Fesko uncovers a more catholic rationale. He shows that the terms adopted were already being used in Reformed writings to refer to the same reality as “active and passive obedience”. For example, “whole obedience” is used like this by John Davenant, Lucas Trelcatius, Petrus de Witte, and Thomas Cranmer. Similarly, “obedience and satisfaction” is synonymous with “active and passive obedience” in the work of key Reformed leaders such as William Perkins and James Ussher.[28] As a result, rather than these terms signalling a withdrawal from the Reformed consensus, they can instead be seen as yet another example of the divines’ commitment to reflecting it in their documents.
Conclusion
This assignment critically discussed one way the Westminster divines demonstrated catholicity. By alluding to historic authors, aligning themselves with previous confessions, and adopting particular terms during their debates over justification, they displayed their commitment to conform to the broader Reformed consensus. In this way they fully embraced their mandate in the Solemn League and Covenant, as well as exhibited the “theological sensibility” that would later be called Reformed catholicity.[29]
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Bower, John R., The Larger Catechism: A Critical Text and Introduction (Grand Rapids, 2010).
___________, The Confession of Faith: A Critical Text and Introduction (Grand Rapids, 2020).
John Lightfoot’s Journals of the Westminster Assembly, ed. Chad Van Dixhoorn (Oxford, 2023).
The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643–1652, ed. Chad Van Dixhoorn, 5 vols (Oxford, 2012).
‘The Solemn League and Covenant (1643)’, in Samuel Rawson Gardiner, ed., Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution 1625–1660 (Oxford, 1968), 267–71.
Secondary Sources
Allen, Michael, and Swain, Scott R., Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, 2015).
Fesko, J. V., Death in Adam, Life in Christ: The Doctrine of Imputation (Fearn, 2016).
_________, Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine (Phillipsburg, 2008).
_________, The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights (Wheaton, 2014).
Horton, Michael, Justification: Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, 2018).
Letham, Robert, The Westminster Assembly: Reading its Theology in Historical Context (Phillipsburg, 2009)
Strange, Alan D., Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ in the Westminster Standards (Grand Rapids, 2019).
Van Dixhoorn, Chad, Confessing the Faith: A reader’s guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith (Edinburgh, 2014).
_________________, ‘The Strange Silence of Prolocutor Twisse: Predestination and Politics in the Westminster Assembly’s Debate over Justification’, Sixteenth Century Journal, XL/2 (2009), 395–418.
[1] The Solemn League and Covenant, i.
[2] The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643–1652, ed. Chad Van Dixhoorn, 5 vols (Oxford, 2012), v. 30.
[3] John Lightfoot’s Journals of the Westminster Assembly, ed. Chad Van Dixhoorn (Oxford, 2023), 77, 83.
[4] Chad Van Dixhoorn, ‘The Strange Silence of Prolocutor Twisse: Predestination and Politics in the Westminster Assembly’s Debate over Justification’, Sixteenth Century Journal, XL/2 (2009), 399.
[5] J. V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights (Wheaton, 2014), 210.
[6] J. V. Fesko, Death in Adam, Life in Christ: The Doctrine of Imputation (Fearn, 2016), 91.
[7] John R. Bower, The Confession of Faith: A Critical Text and Introduction (Grand Rapids, 2020), 76.
[8] Minutes and Papers, 1:35, 2:58.
[9] Van Dixhoorn, ‘Strange Silence’, 414.
[10] Minutes and Papers, 1:148–161.
[11] Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly: Reading its Theology in Historical Context (Phillipsburg, 2009), 254.
[12] Minutes and Papers, 2:45,49,63,67,69,71.
[13] Minutes and Papers, 2:96.
[14] Minutes and Papers, 2:43.
[15] Letham, Westminster Assembly, 259.
[16] Minutes and Papers, 2:60.
[17] Westminster Confession of Faith, 11:1,2.
[18] Fesko, Theology of the Westminster Standards, 221.
[19] Letham, Westminster Assembly, 273.
[20] Letham, Westminster Assembly, 260.
[21] Minutes and Papers, 2:66.
[22] Alan D. Strange, Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ in the Westminster Standards (Grand Rapids, 2019), 48.
[23] Fesko, Death in Adam, 92–94.
[24] Minutes and Papers, 2:93.
[25] Van Dixhoorn, ‘Strange Silence’, 412.
[26] Minutes and Papers, 2:107, Westminster Confession of Faith, 11:1, Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 70.
[27] Letham, Westminster Assembly, 264.
[28] Fesko, Death in Adam, 99.
[29] Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain, Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, 2015), 12.