Bénédict Pictet (1655-1724) on the assurance of election

Benedict Pictet

In addition to previous posts on the assurance of election from Heinrich Bullinger and Joseph Alleine, this is my translation of Book VII, Chapter III of the Theologia Christiana of Bénédict Pictet (1655-1724), who served as professor of theology at Geneva and was the nephew of Francis Turretin.

1. Not only is the election of believers certain and immutable, but they can also be certain that they are elected; of course not by ascending into heaven to unfold the book of life, but by descending into themselves, as it were, paging through the book of conscience, and observing in themselves the fruits of election.

2. For firstly and truly, if believers can know that they have faith, they can be certain of their election, because faith is the effect of election; yet they can know that they possess faith, as is sufficiently proved by that passage of Paul, in which he commands believers to examine ‘whether they be in the faith,’ (2 Cor. 13:5) for in vain would the apostle command this, if it were impossible to know it.

3. Secondly, if believers can know that they are the children of God, then it follows that they can be certain of their election. For verily it is clear that all the children of God are elected, and so beyond controversy it is affirmed, since Paul teaches that ‘the Spirit itself bears witness with our spirits, that we are the children of God,’ (Rom. 8:16). [So it comes down to] whether or not a believer believes the testimony of the Spirit, and if he believes the testimony of the Spirit, he knows that he is a child of God, and if he knows he is a child, he is therefore certain of his election.

4. We are likewise said to be ‘sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption,’ (Eph. 4:30). For how could this take place, that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit, unless we perceive it? Indeed the operation of the Holy Spirit imbues souls with such sweetness and joy, that it cannot be hidden from a believer; hence John says, ‘hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.’ (1 Jn. 4:13). Now how can it be possible that we know that the Holy Spirit has been given to us, and yet be ignorant of our election, since the Holy Spirit is given to none other than the elect?

5. Not least do the examples of the saints establish this truth, who, being sure of their salvation and election, asserted boldly and with the greatest confidence that no created thing, not even death itself, could separate them from the love of God (Rom. 8:38).

6. But here various things are to be noted. Firstly, the believer is not always certain of his election, nor equally so at all times, for this assurance is often shaken by the cross [i.e. afflictions] or violent temptations; hence the complaining voices of the saints toward God, as if he had completely deserted them, and ‘the right hand of the Most High had been changed.’

Secondly, many in the church tend to wrongly boast of this assurance with usurped confidence, greatly abusing it; hence it is sometimes better to hear the groans of a mourning believer, than the exultations of one who rejoices, not through faith, but of self-opinion. And it often happens that those who presume deceive themselves. But those who groan and, with the publican, dare not lift up their eyes, nevertheless possess the very thing which they sense they do not have, while others shall discover afterwards, by the just judgment of God, to be deprived of what they by vain presumption supposed they possessed.

7. Thirdly, one should not immediately despair of a believer, even though at individual moments he may not sense the testimony of the Holy Spirit, because the divine Spirit conducts himself with believers in such a way, that he rather often deprives them of the sense of his love for a number of intervals, in order that they, thinking humbly of themselves, may begin to grieve over the sins they have committed.

8. Fourthly, there is no true believer that is not sometimes certain of his election and salvation, for although the sense of present grace and the hope of the future may for a time be laid asleep in the children of God, yet the believing soul breaks out of that abyss when God restores to it the joy of his salvation. Hence, if sometimes the soul groans, struggles, sighs, is agitated, and fears, yet shortly afterwards it sings, trusts, rejoices, and triumphs, as if over a conquered enemy; as is seen in the cases of David, Asaph, Paul, and others. At any rate we believe that it is very rare that true believers die having doubts about their salvation.

9. Fifthly, this assurance cannot become effective apart from the pursuit of holiness; for a man who persists in sin and yet persuades himself that he is elected to eternal life and will be certainly saved – he who thinks such of himself would rather deceive himself with a vain hope. Indeed, on the contrary, a man who should indulge his carnal lusts, and rush headlong into sin, should be persuaded that he is in a state of damnation, and that eternal destruction hangs over him, unless he immediately turns and amends his ways.

10. Sixthly, this assurance is not incompatible with that fear and trembling, with which we are commanded to work out our salvation (Phil. 2:12). For this fear is not serviledistrustful, and despairing, but filial, humble, reverential, and of pious solicitude.

11. There are two diseases of the mind, which tend to corrupt faith: carnal security, and pride of heart. For both these evils, the remedy is fear: for pride, a humble and reverential fear; for security, a solicitous fear, that we should make use of all the necessary means. From the former the believer learns to think humbly of himself and highly of God; from the latter he learns that he must not be slothful in the way of salvation.

12. Seventhly, this doctrine of the assurance of election must be set forth cautiously and prudently, for the solace of afflicted consciences, not for the security of the profane. Nor should it ever be enforced without constantly requiring the pursuit of sanctification and repentance. If anyone should ask how he may obtain certainty regarding his election, let him have this answer: God has given him two books by which he may attain this knowledge – the book of scripture and the book of conscience. In the book of scripture the marks of election are delineated; in the book of conscience he can read and discover whether he has these [marks] in himself. These are 1) true faith, 2) hatred of and fleeing from sin, 3) a sincere pursuit after holiness, 4) unfeigned love to God, even in the midst of afflictions, 5) love to our neighbours and even our enemies, 6) and a heart disdaining the world, and panting after heaven.

John Calvin (1509-1564) and Matthew Henry (1662-1714) on 2 Tim. 4:13

charles_haddon_spurgeon1

Over at the Gospel Coalition, Justin Taylor provides Charles Spurgeon’s (1834-1892) noteworthy comments on 2 Tim. 4:13. The passage in question reads:

“When you [Timothy] come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.”

To add to Spurgeon’s comments, here’s what John Calvin (1509-1564) and Matthew Henry (1662-1714) had to say on this passage:

220px-John_Calvin_2

Calvin:

“It is evident from this, that the Apostle had not given over reading, though he was already preparing for death. Where are those who think that they have made so great progress that they do not need any more exercise? Which of them will dare to compare himself with Paul? Still more does this expression refute the madness of those men who — despising books, and condemning all reading — boast of nothing but their own ἐνθουσιασμοὺς divine inspirations. But let us know that this passage gives to all believers a recommendation of constant reading, that they may profit by it.”

matthewhenry

Henry:

“Paul was guided by divine inspiration, and yet he would have his books with him. Whereas he had exhorted Timothy to give attendance to reading, so he did himself, though he was now ready to be offered. As long as we live, we must be still learning.”

Johannes Hoornbeeck (1617-1666): Theology is not only speculative

Johannes Hoornbeeck

To add to previous posts from Edwards and Calvin on the practical nature of theology, this is from the Utrecht and Leiden professor Johannes Hoornbeeck (1617-1666), Theologiæ Practicæ, vol. 1, p. 7:

“Theology never teaches one only to speculate but always directs the action of the will towards some object whether good or evil, so that we may detest and flee the latter and truly so that we may love and pursue the former, and at every point in the same mode and order be directed to God.”

John Calvin (1509-1564): Doctrine is not merely apprehended by the intellect

220px-John_Calvin_2

Theologia est doctrina Deo vivendi per Christum – Theology is the doctrine of living unto God through Christ. It is doctrine, that is, propositional teaching apprehended by the mind (i.e. it is what theologians call theoreticaspeculativa or contemplativa). But it is the doctrine of living unto God through Christ, that is, it has practica as its end. The study of theology is meant not only to inform the intellect, but to reach the heart and affections, and thereby lead to practice. Thus the acquisition of the knowledge of God is a means to an end, namely the worship of the Triune God. John Calvin (1509-1564) talks in this line in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.vii.4:

“This is the place to address those who, having nothing of Christ but the name and sign, would yet be called Christians. How dare they boast of this sacred name? None have intercourse with Christ but those who have acquired the true knowledge of him from the Gospel. The Apostle denies that any man truly has learned Christ who has not learned to put off ‘the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and put on Christ,’ (Eph. 4:22). They are convicted, therefore, of falsely and unjustly pretending a knowledge of Christ, whatever be the volubility and eloquence with which they can talk of the Gospel. Doctrine is not an affair of the tongue, but of the life; is not apprehended by the intellect and memory merely, like other branches of learning; but is received only when it possesses the whole soul, and finds its seat and habitation in the inmost recesses of the heart. Let them, therefore, either cease to insult God, by boasting that they are what they are not, or let them show themselves not unworthy disciples of their divine Master. To doctrine in which our religion is contained we have given the first place, since by it our salvation commences; but it must be transfused into the breast, and pass into the conduct, and so transform us into itself, as not to prove unfruitful. If philosophers are justly offended, and banish from their company with disgrace those who, while professing an art which ought to be the mistress of their conduct, convert it into mere loquacious sophistry, with how much better reason shall we detest those flimsy sophists who are contented to let the Gospel play upon their lips, when, from its efficacy, it ought to penetrate the inmost affections of the heart, fix its seat in the soul, and pervade the whole man a hundred times more than the frigid discourses of philosophers?”

Charles Bridges (1794-1869): Preaching from the heart

Charles Bridges

“The Minister, that does not manifestly put his heart into his sermon, will never put his sermon into the hearts of his people. Pompous elocution, attempts at theatrical display, or affected emotions, are indeed most repugnant to the simple dignity of our office. A painted fire may glare, but will not warm. Violent agitations, without correspondent tenderness of feeling, will disgust instead of arresting the mind. Preaching is not (as some appear to think it) the work of the lungs, or the mimicry of gesture, or the impulse of uncontrollable feeling; but the spiritual energy of a heart constrained by the love of Christ, and devoted to the care of those immortal souls, for whom Christ died.”

– Charles Bridges (1794-1869), The Christian Ministry, p. 320

The Waldenses and the famous sonnet of John Milton (1608-1674)

Wal 1

The Waldenses started as a Christian movement in Lyon, France, in the late 1170s. They received their name from their reputed founder, Pierre Valdès (Peter Waldo). In 1173 Waldo, a wealthy merchant from Lyon, heard a troubadour (a medieval poet/singer) sing the praises of St. Alexius, the patron saint of pilgrims and beggars. This song, together with the sorrow he felt for the sudden death of one of his friends shortly before, pressed on him the feeling that all his accumulated possessions were worthless. Thus he made the decision, which shortly afterwards would also be taken by Francis of Assisi, to give away his property to the poor and to those whom he felt he had done wrong, becoming an advocate of voluntary poverty in the process.

Waldo had begun street-preaching, which was simple and accommodated to the uneducated, drawing followers who became known as The Poor of Lyon. Meanwhile he had commissioned two priests to translate sections of the Bible, particularly the Gospels and Psalms, into French. His preaching, lack of theological training, and use of a non-Latin Bible, however, got him in trouble with the Archbishop Guichard of Lyon and the local ecclesiastical authorities, who forbade his activities. When he refused to obey their orders, invoking Peter and the other apostles’ words “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29 – where the apostles were also forbidden to preach), he was banned from the local diocese.

So he appealed to Pope Alexander III, and went Rome to explain his cause at the third Lateran Council (1179), where he was not treated with hostility, but yet was forbidden to preach without permission from the ecclesiastical authorities in Lyon. Still Waldo did not obey this verdict of the Council, and took Luke 10:1 literally by sending his followers out two by two to preach all over the place, but especially in southern France, northern Italy, and the Rhineland, establishing communities which were separate from the Roman Catholic Church. This did not go down well with Rome, and resulted in a Papal Bull (Ad Abolendam) being issued in 1184 by Pope Lucius III, which placed the Waldenses under ban, with them being condemned as heretics. This resulted in centuries-long persecution, torture, and killing of Waldenses by both civil and ecclesiastical authorities, which drove them to flee to the French and Italian valleys of the Cottian Alps.

The principal “heresy” of the Waldenses was their disregard for the authority of the Papacy, although they also came to reject such Papist doctrines and traditions as the seven sacraments (affirming only baptism and the Lord’s Supper), transubstantiation, purgatory, the holiness of relics, pilgrimages, prayer for the dead, the veneration of saints, and the use of the Latin Vulgate only, along with several others.

Importantly, the Waldenians came to their convictions by the reading of the Bible. The Dominican Inquisitor Etienne de Bourbon, wrote of the Waldenses:

“They know the Apostolic Creed very well in their mother tongue, they learn the Gospels in their language in such a way that they can recite  parts in the presence of others. I knew a young cowhand who spent but one year in the home of a Waldensian heretic, but so faithfully trained and recited to himself everything that within one year he had learned the Gospel-pericopes of forty Sundays; he could repeat it all word for word in his mother tongue.”

This emphasis on returning to the Bible as the source of religious knowledge played a key role in the Waldenses arriving at their views and rejecting many of the Popish errors. Waldo’s saying is preserved in Waldensian writer Durando d’Osca’s Liber Antihaeresis: “The church of God is always there where a community of believers is found, who uphold the true faith and endorse this by their works.”

While we should be cautious to anachronistically think of the early Waldenses as forerunners of the Reformation, some of the later Waldensian ministers were introduced to Reformed Protestant thought by John Calvin’s colleague in Geneva, Guillaume Farel. These Waldenses came to affirm the Reformed doctrine of predestination, and furthermore adapted themselves to Genevan forms of worship and church polity, and in fact were taken up in the Swiss Reformed Church at the Synod of Chanforan in 1532 to leave their secrecy and worship openly in French. Not all later Waldenses went this route, however, as many remained in secrecy in the Alps, and some developed views more akin to those of the Anabaptists.

Wal 2

Persecution of Waldenses, as with Protestants in general, continued throughout the 16th and 17th centuries. One of these persecutions occurred with the Massacre of Mérindol in 1545, in which King Francis I of France ordered that the Waldenses be punished for religious dissent. Dozens of villages were destroyed, and thousands upon thousands of people were killed. What’s more, is that Francis I and Pope Paul III both gave the thumbs-up to this massacre, with the Pope even rewarding Jean Maynier d’Oppède, one of the leaders of the massacre, with Imperial honours.

Wal 3

Another instance occurred in 1655, when the Duke of Savoy in January commanded the Waldenses to attend Mass or be removed from the lower valleys of their homeland, giving them twenty days to sell their lands. Since it was winter at the time,  the Duke reckoned that the Waldenses would rather choose to attend Mass than leave their homes behind. But contrary to his expectations, they instead opted to leave the lower valleys and move to the upper valleys, making the harsh trek through the Alps in the middle of winter, where they were warmly received by their impoverished Waldensian brothers in the upper valleys. By April it became clear that the Duke’s efforts to convert the Waldenses to Catholicism had failed, and so he sent troops into the upper valleys to suppress them, forcing them to host the troops in their homes, which the Waldenses complied with. This, of course, was entirely a scheme to give the troops easy access to the Waldenses. At 4 a.m. on 24 April 1655, the signal was given for a general massacre, in which the troops embarked on an unprovoked campaign of looting, rape, torture, and murder. This massacre became known as the Piedmont Easter. Peter Liegé wrote of the event:

“Little children were torn from the arms of their mothers, clasped by their tiny feet, and their heads dashed against the rocks; or were held between two soldiers and their quivering limbs torn up by main force. Their mangled bodies were then thrown on the highways or fields, to be devoured by beasts. The sick and the aged were burned alive in their dwellings. Some had their hands and arms and legs lopped off, and fire applied to the severed parts to staunch the bleeding and prolong their suffering. Some were flayed alive, some were roasted alive, some disemboweled; or tied to trees in their own orchards, and their hearts cut out. Some were horribly mutilated, and of others the brains were boiled and eaten by these cannibals. Some were fastened down into the furrows of their own fields, and ploughed into the soil as men plough manure into it. Others were buried alive. Fathers were marched to death with the heads of their sons suspended round their necks. Parents were compelled to look on while their children were first outraged [raped], then massacred, before being themselves permitted to die.”

News of the massacre was met by indignation from Protestants in Switzerland and the Netherlands, where attempts were made to provide an asylum for survivors, as well as in England, where Oliver Cromwell petitioned on behalf of the Waldenses.

John Milton

John Milton (1608-1674) wrote a famous sonnet on this event, titled On the Late Massacre in Piedmont:

Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints, whose bones
Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold,
Even them who kept thy truth so pure of old,
When all our fathers worshiped stocks and stones;
Forget not: in thy book record their groans
Who were thy sheep and in their ancient fold
Slain by the bloody Piedmontese that rolled
Mother with infant down the rocks. Their moans
The vales redoubled to the hills, and they
To Heaven. Their martyred blood and ashes sow
O’er all th’ Italian fields where still doth sway
The triple tyrant; that from these may grow
A hundredfold, who having learnt thy way
Early may fly the Babylonian woe.

Matthew Poole (1624-1679): An English Protestant’s answer to a Popish Priest’s accusation of schism

matthew_poole

The English Nonconformist theologian Matthew Poole (1624-1679), most commonly known for his 5-vol Synopsis Criticorum (a biblical commentary in which he incorporates the views of 150 biblical critics from an array of theological traditions) and for his English Annotations upon the Holy Bible, published a book in 1667 called A Dialogue between a Popish Priest and an English Protestant, which was intended for a popular audience, unlike his more scholarly defence of Protestantism titled The Nullity of the Romish Faith, which was published the year before. In this Dialogue, Poole has the English Protestant and the Popish priest discuss various key points and arguments for their respective positions. One of these is the Popish priest’s accusation that the Protestant is guilty of schism. This is from p. 41-45 of the 1843 reprint:

Popish Priest: It is sufficient against you, that your church is schismatical, and you are all guilty of schism, in departing from the true catholic church, which is but one, and that is the Roman.

Protestant: I desire to know of you, whether in no case a man may separate from the church whereof he was a member, without schism?

Popish Priest: Yes, certainly, if there be sufficient cause for it; for the apostles did separate from the church of the Jews after Christ’s death; and the orthodox separated from the Arian churches, and all communion with them; yet none ever charged them with schism.

Protestant: Since you mention that instance, I pray you tell me why they separated from the Arians.

Popish Priest: Because they held this heresy, that Christ was a creature, and not the true God.

Protestant: Very well; hence then I conclude, that if your church do hold any heresy, and require all her members to hold it too, it is no schism for us to separate from you.

Popish Priest: That must needs be granted; but this is but a slander of yours, for our church holds no such heresies.

Protestant: Your church does not hold one, but many dangerous errors and heresies, as I do not doubt to manifest ere you and I part; and, if you please, we will leave the present argument to this issue: if I do not prove your church guilty of heresy, and the imposition of it too, I am content you should charge us with schism; if I do, you shall mention it no more.

Popish Priest: You speak reason; let it rest there.

Protestant: Besides, methinks, you deal barbarously with us; you drive us out from you by your tyranny, and then you blame us for departing; as if Sarah had called Hagar a schismatic for going out of Abraham’s family. From which she forced her. Tell me, I pray you, if the case be so that I must depart from the Roman church, or from God, what must I do?

Popish Priest: The case is plain; you must rather depart from that church.

Protestant: This is the case; if I do not depart from your church, she will force me to live in many mortal sins. I must believe a hundred lies, I must worship the cross, and relics, and images, which God commands me, under pain of his highest displeasure, not to worship. I must worship the sacrament with Divine worship, which I am assured is no other for substance than bread; for your church is not content to hold these opinions, but she enjoins these practices to all her members. And if things be thus, I think you will not have the confidence any more to charge us with schism for obeying the command of God to come out of Babylon, since you force all your members to partake with you in your sins, Rev. xviii. 4. Besides all this, let me ask you, upon what account you charge us with schism?

Popish Priest: For departing from the catholic church, and from your mother church of Rome, and from the pope, whose subjects once you were.

Protestant: If, then, I can prove that we are not departed from the catholic church, nor from our mother church, nor from any of that subjection we owe to the pope, I hope you will acquit us from schism.

Popish Priest: That I cannot deny.

Protestant: Then this danger is over. For, 1. We never did depart from the catholic church, which is not your particular Roman church, as you most ridiculously call it, but the whole multitude of believers and Christians in the world. Nay, the truth is, you are the schismatics, in renouncing all communion with all the Christian churches in the world, except your own, which are equal to yours in number, and many of them far superior in true piety. Next, we do not own you for our mother: Jerusalem which is above (not Babylon that is beneath) is the mother of us all, Gal. iv. 26. If we grant you now are a true church, yet you were but a sister-church.

Popish Priest: You forget that you received the gospel from our hands.

Protestant: Suppose we did really so; does that give you authority over us? If it did, not Rome, but Jerusalem should be the mother-church, from whom you also received the gospel. This you deny, which shows that you do not believe your own argument to be good. And as to the pope’s universal and infallible authority, which he pretends over all Christians, I have diligently read your arguments for it, and I freely profess to you, I find your pretences, both from Scripture and the fathers, so weak and frivolous, that I durst commend it to any understanding and disinterested person, as a most likely means to convince him of the vanity and falseness of that doctrine, that he would peruse any of your best authors, and the very sight of the weakness and impertinency of your arguments would abundantly satisfy him of the badness of your cause.

For another Protestant defence against the Catholic accusation of schism, see this recent post from French Huguenot Pierre Jurieu (1637-1713)