Samuel Rutherford: A Translation

Translator’s Introduction

During the Second Reformation God gave to Scotland several eminent preachers, theologians and churchman. In that age of towering intellects adorned with vital godliness, the name Samuel Rutherford stands out above others. While primarily known today for the Christlike savor perfuming his Letters, Rutherford also served as one of the most significant British theologians of the seventeenth century; he is perhaps the most notable scholar in Scottish Presbyterian history.¹The size of his written corpus rivals that of John Owen, though his collected works were never assembled into a complete set and did not enjoy the reception given to Owen’s writings, perhaps due in part to the ponderous and meandering style found in some of Rutherford’s books. Gisbertus Voetius and Andreas Essenius, two of the most important Reformed theologians in Europe at the time, wrote prefatory material (the Judicium) to Rutherford’s Latin text translated below.²Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676) and Andreas Essenius (1618-1677) were both Dutch Reformed theologians who served as professors on the faculty at Utrecht. In rendering their opinion of Rutherford and his work, they multiplied Latin superlatives: “Thus rightly the name of Samuel Rutherford is most highly honored, the most substantial of theologians, formerly a most worthy professor of that faculty at the Academy of St. Andrews, the most profoundly practical, the most skilled expert for truth and godliness. This latest born offspring, The Examination of Arminianism, has so great a parent.”³This is my translation of the Latin from, Samuele Rhetorforte, Examen Arminianismi (Ultrajecti, 1668). Modern scholars share this same assessment. Willem van Asselt asserts, “The most prominent Reformed theologian during the period of high orthodoxy in Scotland was Samuel Rutherford.”⁴Willem van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), p. 156. The best modern treatment of Rutherford’s life and thought is John Coffey’s magisterial work, Politics, Religion and the British Revolution: The Mind of Samuel Rutherford (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). See also Matthew Vogan (ed.), Samuel Rutherford: An Introduction to His Theology (Edinburgh: Scottish Reformation Society, 2012).

While Rutherford published most of his works in English, he also wrote three substantial books in Latin, which have never been translated into English.⁵Exercitationes apologeticae pro divina gratia (Amsterdam, 1636), Disputatio scholastica de divina providentia (Edinburgh, 1649) and Examen Arminianismi (Utrecht, 1668). For a careful treatment of Examen Arminianismi, see Guy M. Richard’s published dissertation, The Supremacy of God in the Theology of Samuel Rutherford (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008). The excerpts translated from Latin below are selected from Rutherford’s Examen Arminianismi (An Examination of Arminianism). This book contains Rutherford’s lecture notes on systematic theology while serving as professor at St. Andrews. As the title indicates, and as the material below demonstrates, the book targets the Arminians as his chief opponents. Though published in the Netherlands after Rutherford’s death, it reflects the early development of Rutherford’s thought.⁶In his later ministry he transferred his aim to other opponents, including the Antinomians, which propounded opposite errors to the Arminians. See for example, A Survey of the Spirituall Antichrist . . . in two parts (London: Andrew Crooke, 1648) and Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself (repr., Edinburgh: T. Lumisden and J. Robertson, 1727). This led to a shift in emphasis and the development of complimentary truths. For example, Rutherford provides seed thoughts about the relationship of the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace (see Chapter 10; point 4), which he develops more extensively in his later writings, especially in refuting the Antinomians. See Footnote 15 below.

My translation intentionally reflects a more literal rendering of the Latin rather than a free-flowing translation so as to convey the style of the original seventeenth century text. 

An Examination of Arminianism (Utrecht, 1668), by Samuel Rutherford

Chapter 14: Concerning the Certitude of Salvation, pages 638-640

The question is raised⁷Quaeritur: literally “it is sought.” Rutherford employs here the quaestio method, a tool used in theological disputation (disputatio). What follows exemplifies the scholastic method, which theologians within Post-Reformation Orthodoxy used extensively in their polemical writings. The points below (usually introduced with quia) lay out and establish the arguments or reasons for his position., Whether rightly the Remonstrants⁸After the death of Jacobus Arminius (d. 1609), a group of his Dutch Protestant followers, led by Simon Episcopius (1583-1643), submitted a remonstrance in 1610, outlining their objections to Calvinist doctrine under five articles. In 1618, the Synod of Dordrecht refuted these errors and confirmed the biblical truths codified in the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. should pass by with silence on the doctrine concerning certitude, the certitude of our election; and whether rightly Grevinckhoven⁹Nicolaas Grevinckhoven (d. 1632) was a Dutch Arminian minister and a proponent of the Remonstrant party. against Ames¹⁰William Ames (1576-1633) was an Orthodox Reformed theologian from England who labored in Holland. Rutherford’s reference is found on p. 138 of Dissertatio theologica de duabus quaestionibus hoc tempore controversis, quarum prima est De reconciliatione per mortem Christi impetrata omnibus ac singulis hominibus: altera, De electione ex fide prævisa. Sermone primùm inchoata, posteà vero scripto continuata, inter Guilielmum Amesium et Nicolaum Grevinchovium. Non qualem ille eam edidit cum suo, quod agnoscit, auctario; sed genuina illa atque integra: cui accessit ejusdem Grevinchovij responsio ad Amesii instantias (Roterodami Batavorum: Mathias Sebastiani, 1615). should deny all sense of election in this life.

We answer: The Remonstrants deny that anyone is able to know in this life that he himself is decisively elected unto glory, because no one, according to them, is decisively and irrevocably elected, unless dying in faith. But we contend against them, that people ought to be certain about their own eternal election, not, to be sure, with an a priori certainty (for who has known the mind of the Lord?) but with an a posteriori certainty.

1. Because we receive the Spirit who is from God, so that we might know that which God has freely given to us (1 Cor. 2:12). Therefore, also (we know) election has been granted from eternity.
2. Because all who are elected unto glory are also predestined to conversion and the adoption of the Sons of God (Eph. 1:5-6). But God has given to us many τεκμηρια (Greek: “proofs”), by which we may know that we are converted; therefore, also by which we may know that we are elected unto glory. A greater proof is Rom. 8:30 and Acts 13:48. A smaller proof is 1 John 2:3, “By this we know that we know him, if we keep his commands”; and 1 John 3:14, “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brothers”; “By this we know that we love the sons of God, since we love God and keep his commands” (1 John 4:2); “And we know and believe the love that he has toward us” (1 John 4:16).¹¹Though not indicated in the text, Rutherford’s Scripture quotations are taken from Theodore Beza’s (1519-1605) Latin New Testament translation.
3. Because we are ordered to render our calling and election more firm through good works (2 Pet. 1:10).
4. Because we know that we are called and justified by peace of conscience, by παρρησιαν (Greek: “boldness”), by a sense of the love of God poured out in our hearts, by hope, which is not ashamed, by boasting in afflictions (Rom. 5:1-4; Rom. 8:15-17). And those who were justified, have the clear Word of God that they were predestined unto glory (Rom. 8:30, Acts 13:48).
5. Because not only the Apostles but also the seventy disciples are ordered to rejoice that their names had been written in the book of life (Luke 10:20). Therefore, they knew – and they were considered to know – that they were elect unto glory.
6. Because we are constrained, by the example of Paul and the Faithful, to attribute the grace and glory of our election altogether to God (Eph. 1:2-9, 1 Pet. 2:1-4). And no one is constrained to give thanks about a conjectural, free benefit in Christ, which he may reach, ignore, and even be obliged to ignore.

The Tenth Chapter: Concerning the Covenant of Grace, pages 438-439

The question is raised, Whether the covenant of grace is eternal; whether truly it so depends on this covenant continuing by our free will of choice, that we may be able to remain in it, or through our decision to be cut off by it?

The Remonstrants deny that this Covenant is eternal. We assert that this Covenant is unalterable and eternal.

1. The eternal nature¹²Aeternitas Foederis: literally, “the eternity of the covenant.” of the Covenant is established from each part expressed in these words. From God’s side: “And I will make with them an everlasting Covenant, so that I will not turn away from doing good to them” (Jer. 32:40). And the eternal nature of the same is established from our side in the same place; it is established from the infallible promise of God: “and I will put my reverence in their soul, so that they might not withdraw from me.”¹³Though not indicated in the text, Rutherford’s Scripture quotations are taken from Immanuel Tremellius’ (1510-1580) Latin Old Testament translation.
2. Because final perseverance in grace is promised to those in the covenant¹⁴Literally: “the covenanters” or “the covenanted ones.” (Jer. 32:40, 41; Jer. 31:33-35; Isa. 59:21; Hos. 2:18; Ps.1:5; 1 Jn. 4:14; Mt. 16:18; Jn. 6:37; Jn. 10:28, 29; Jn. 14:16).
3. Because this Covenant is equally fixed, consistent and inviolable, and it is a natural Covenant of God according to the perpetuation of day and night, the revolving of Sun and Moon (Jer. 31:35-37). And it is that kind (of covenant), because with God’s sacred oath interposed, it is evident to be most true. And Noah’s world is not in need of being overwhelmed with waters (Isa. 54:10). Therefore, it was confirmed by God’s immutability and veracity, who is not able to lie (Ps. 89:34-37).
4. Because it is supported by the sacred Covenant which will never be violated, between the Father and his Son, entered into, concerning an ancient seed which will be given to him (Isa. 53:10), children (Isa. 8:18. Heb. 2:13), concerning giving to him a dominion from sea to sea (Ps. 72:8; Ps. 2:8, 9) and a willing people (Ps. 110:3).¹⁵Rutherford went on in his later writings to develop the distinction between the Covenant of Redemption (pactum salutis) and the Covenant of Grace and to establish the idea that the former undergirds and supports the latter. See The Covenant of Life Opened (Edinburgh: Andrew Anderson, 1655). See also D. Patrick Ramsey, Samuel Rutheford’s Contribution to Covenant Theology, in Matthew Vogan (ed.), Samuel Rutherford: An Introduction to His Theology (Edinburgh: Scottish Reformation Society, 2012), 139-166. Even now he may set aside souls for himself. Moreover, this Covenant between the Father and the Son, is in no way able to be an ineffective thing.
5. The death and shedding of the blood of Christ would have been in vain, by which the Testament of the Covenant was established. And there would be a place for another covenant, another Surety, who would confirm another covenant with another blood, if this covenant would be able to be returned void.
6. Because predetermined grace, pardon of moral lapses and repentance are promised in this Covenant.
7. That distinction would be destroyed, that the Holy Spirit had established between the Covenant that Jehovah had stipulated with the house of Israel, on that day when he led them out of Egypt – and the New Covenant; because that (previous) one was void and violated, but this one truly eternal and inviolable (Jer. 31:31-33).

Footnotes

• 1
  The size of his written corpus rivals that of John Owen, though his collected works were never assembled into a complete set and did not enjoy the reception given to Owen’s writings, perhaps due in part to the ponderous and meandering style found in some of Rutherford’s books. ↩︎
• 2
  Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676) and Andreas Essenius (1618-1677) were both Dutch Reformed theologians who served as professors on the faculty at Utrecht. ↩︎
• 3
  This is my translation of the Latin from, Samuele Rhetorforte, Examen Arminianismi (Ultrajecti, 1668). ↩︎
• 4
  Willem van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), p. 156. The best modern treatment of Rutherford’s life and thought is John Coffey’s magisterial work, Politics, Religion and the British Revolution: The Mind of Samuel Rutherford (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). See also Matthew Vogan (ed.), Samuel Rutherford: An Introduction to His Theology (Edinburgh: Scottish Reformation Society, 2012). ↩︎
• 5
  Exercitationes apologeticae pro divina gratia (Amsterdam, 1636), Disputatio scholastica de divina providentia (Edinburgh, 1649) and Examen Arminianismi (Utrecht, 1668). For a careful treatment of Examen Arminianismi, see Guy M. Richard’s published dissertation, The Supremacy of God in the Theology of Samuel Rutherford (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008). ↩︎
• 6
  In his later ministry he transferred his aim to other opponents, including the Antinomians, which propounded opposite errors to the Arminians. See for example, A Survey of the Spirituall Antichrist . . . in two parts (London: Andrew Crooke, 1648) and Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself (repr., Edinburgh: T. Lumisden and J. Robertson, 1727). This led to a shift in emphasis and the development of complimentary truths. For example, Rutherford provides seed thoughts about the relationship of the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace (see Chapter 10; point 4), which he develops more extensively in his later writings, especially in refuting the Antinomians. See Footnote 15 below. ↩︎
• 7
  Quaeritur: literally “it is sought.” Rutherford employs here the quaestio method, a tool used in theological disputation (disputatio). What follows exemplifies the scholastic method, which theologians within Post-Reformation Orthodoxy used extensively in their polemical writings. The points below (usually introduced with quia) lay out and establish the arguments or reasons for his position. ↩︎
• 8
  After the death of Jacobus Arminius (d. 1609), a group of his Dutch Protestant followers, led by Simon Episcopius (1583-1643), submitted a remonstrance in 1610, outlining their objections to Calvinist doctrine under five articles. In 1618, the Synod of Dordrecht refuted these errors and confirmed the biblical truths codified in the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. ↩︎
• 9
  Nicolaas Grevinckhoven (d. 1632) was a Dutch Arminian minister and a proponent of the Remonstrant party. ↩︎
• 10
  William Ames (1576-1633) was an Orthodox Reformed theologian from England who labored in Holland. Rutherford’s reference is found on p. 138 of Dissertatio theologica de duabus quaestionibus hoc tempore controversis, quarum prima est De reconciliatione per mortem Christi impetrata omnibus ac singulis hominibus: altera, De electione ex fide prævisa. Sermone primùm inchoata, posteà vero scripto continuata, inter Guilielmum Amesium et Nicolaum Grevinchovium. Non qualem ille eam edidit cum suo, quod agnoscit, auctario; sed genuina illa atque integra: cui accessit ejusdem Grevinchovij responsio ad Amesii instantias (Roterodami Batavorum: Mathias Sebastiani, 1615). ↩︎
• 11
  Though not indicated in the text, Rutherford’s Scripture quotations are taken from Theodore Beza’s (1519-1605) Latin New Testament translation. ↩︎
• 12
  Aeternitas Foederis: literally, “the eternity of the covenant.” ↩︎
• 13
  Though not indicated in the text, Rutherford’s Scripture quotations are taken from Immanuel Tremellius’ (1510-1580) Latin Old Testament translation. ↩︎
• 14
  Literally: “the covenanters” or “the covenanted ones.” ↩︎
• 15
  Rutherford went on in his later writings to develop the distinction between the Covenant of Redemption (pactum salutis) and the Covenant of Grace and to establish the idea that the former undergirds and supports the latter. See The Covenant of Life Opened (Edinburgh: Andrew Anderson, 1655). See also D. Patrick Ramsey, Samuel Rutheford’s Contribution to Covenant Theology, in Matthew Vogan (ed.), Samuel Rutherford: An Introduction to His Theology (Edinburgh: Scottish Reformation Society, 2012), 139-166. ↩︎