When one surveys the ever-growing secondary literature on John Owen (1616–1683) the conclusion that can be legitimately drawn is that worship or liturgical theology was just not a major concern for him. Our own Ryan McGraw did his PhD on Owen's view of worship as communion with the Triune God and yours truly is attempting to write a PhD on Owen's liturgical theology.

So, just how important was worship to John Owen? One brief place to find an answer is the longest question and answer in his 1667 treatise, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God. In question and answer fifteen Owen sought to apply and draw out the experiential truth of worshipping God according to Christ’s commands. In doing so, he took his previous principles and asked, “Whence may it appear that the right and due observation of instituted worship is of great importance unto the glory of God, and of high concernment unto the souls of men?” While “the instituted worship of God is neglected and despised in the world,” Owen demonstrated the great importance of the worship of God to the glory of God by citing a catena of biblical passages to demonstrate this, from Genesis through Revelation (Works 15:471). After tracing this out from Adam, Abel, Abraham, Israel, and the Church, Owen said, “In no state or condition, then, of the church did God ever accept of moral obedience without the observation of some instituted worship, accommodated in his wisdom unto its various states and conditions” (Works 15:473).

The importance of worship is also seen in that God gave his ordinances to instruct his people in the mysteries of his will and to communicate love, mercy, and grace to them. Owen demonstrated this from circumcision, which instructed in conversion, from the Passover, which instructed in redemption, from baptism, which instructed in union with Christ, and from the Lord’s Supper, which instructed in communion with Christ (Works 15:473).

Finally, worship was of “high concernment unto the souls of men” because in it God made “blessed promises to his people, to grant them his presence and to bless them in their use.” Even more, Owen said the ordinances of worship were the “tokens of the marriage relation that is between him and them” (Works 15:471). Owen saw this special presence and the blessings that come from, again, from all of Scripture, in the tabernacle of the Old Covenant and in Christ in the New Covenant (Works 15:475). Owen reserved his most intimate metaphors for the importance of worship for the end of this question and answer. “Because we are apt to be slothful, and are slow of heart in admitting a due sense of spiritual things” God desires to stir up his people. He has done this in his declaration that our obedience to his ordinances is a part of the “conjugal covenant” he has made with us in Christ. When we come to worship we show that we are married to Christ, but when we neglect his worship or profane it “by inventions or additions of our own, to be spiritual disloyalty, whoredom and adultery, which his soul abhoreth, for which he will cast off any church or people, and that for ever” (Works 15:475). God has given his people examples of this in Nadab and Abihu, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, the sons of Eli, Uzza, and Uzziah. “From all which it appears of what concernment it is unto the glory of God, and the salvation of our souls, to attend diligently unto our duty in the strict and sincere observation of the worship of the gospel” (Works 15:476).

In this, Owen was doing nothing else than following the trajectory of the early Swiss and German Reformed theologians, who saw the reformation not merely in terms of doctrine (a la Luther and sola fide) but in terms of a whole-orbed approach to the Church and the Christian life. Hence John Calvin one wrote to Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor,

If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity: that is, a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped; and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained (On the Necessity of Reforming the Church).

As Reformed Christians, right worship of the right God ought still to be our passion. It ought to be of great importance as we seek to glorify God and it ought to be of great concern as we seek the Lord's salvation. Is it yours?

Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. (Isaiah 3.10-11 KJV)
We turn from Anglican Thomas Watson’s pastoral prayer in our reading of the Puritan Paperback, Sermons of the Great Ejection, to the transcription of his morning sermon preached on his final Sunday as rector of St. Stephen’s, Walbrook. “The Great Ejection” was the explusion of nearly 2,000 Anglican ministers from their cures in the 1662 Act of Uniformity.
 
Watson’s sermon text is Isaiah 3.10-11 quoted above. What you notice right away in light of other Anglican Puritan Ejection sermons is Watson’s lack of the three-fold division of explanation of the text, deduction of the biblical/theological principle(s) and applications. His concern begins and ends with his hearers. He therefore stresses how evil times such as these were not unique to 1662. He underlines for his congregation how Isaiah lived in similar times. In order to draw his congregation into Isaiah’s oracle, Watson explains that the righteousness held by believers is Christ’s imputed righteousness, a completed righteouness, the sinner justified by God’s grace alone and sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit. 
 
Watson’s wise counsel to his hearers is that they are the righteous ones like the ones of Isaiah 3. They should keep their eyes on the object of their faith, Jesus Christ and their chief end, that they will be gathered to Him to glory of God and to enjoy Him forever. With such an assurance in view all the troubles of the time take their proper place as things of little count. No matter the circumstance, the peace of mind is grounded a clear conscience brought about by God’s work of pardon, adoption, grace and glory. The believer is to school himself in understanding that God alone is his portion. This is the comfort of every believer. 
 
Watson asks, “Will there still be troubles?” Of course, there will be troubles, increasing every day, but what of them? God has so shaped His providence that good will come of it, the fruit of which will be revealed in heaven. Earthly powerlessness frees the believer to rely on God’s providence and his assurance all the more! External trouble and pressure do not show the inward refining of the believer’s soul that is underway for God’s mercy is always active. A believer may be hidden from harm for a time or they may be led to death, even so, all is well with them, for Death may not hold them. At death the curtain parts for the believer: they are the righteous ones, they are the Lord’s! The second death, spiritual death, is not their heritage. God’s true blessing in His glory is brought to fulfillment at last: 
 
“…the day of a believer’s death is the birthday of his blessedness; it is his ascension-day to heaven. The day of death is his marriage-day with Jesus Christ… In this life is only the betrothal [engagement], but at death the nuptials shall be solemnized in glory’ [p. 148]. 
 
And so Watson concludes this first part:
 
“Not that we look for ill things! We are glad when all things go well with us, with our relations, and with our estates. But with the righteous man all things go well. His person is sealed; he is heir of all God’s promises; he is Christ’s favored man; heaven awaits him. Is it not well with the righteous?” (p. 148)
As I pondered his morning sermon, I could well understand Watson’s urgency in the preaching. There is such a pastoral heart for his people. He sets his application in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as the ground of their assurance that anticipates and overcomes their fears of the future. There is also a stirring toward evangelism here. When the believing Christian considers the sweetness of his Savior and his life in God’s grace alongside the terrifying fate of those on the road to perdition, how can he not run to them to comfort them in the ready remedy and to warn them of what lies ahead?

Enter to win Meet the Puritans' first piece of "swag." Deadline is Friday, November 11.

Enter here.

The election of only some to life necessarily implies the existence of a group of non-elect, or reprobate. And so, just as Knox affirmed his belief in election, so he held that “from the same eternitie he hath reprobate others, whom for most just causes, in the tyme appointed to his judgement, he shall adjuge to tormentes and fier inextinguible.” (Works, 5:61) However, while election and reprobation were inseparable doctrines Knox, and the wider Reformed tradition, distinguished between them, saying they were not “of the same sorte.” (Works, 5:124) 
 
Election and Reprobation Distinguished
This asymmetry can be seen in Knox’s clear distinction between the cause of reprobation and the cause of condemnation. The reprobates’ “wickedness” and “manifest rebellion” was not the cause of their reprobation, but it was a “just cause of their condemnation” (Works, 5:71). Thus there were “degrees and just causes” which came between the decree of reprobation and actual condemnation which was on the basis of sin (Works, 5:105). God, for Knox, was “the cause of no man's damnation, but sinne in which they are fallen, is the very cause which all reprobates do find in themselves” (Works, 5:284). By way of contrast, God is the cause of the elect’s salvation.
 
God not Passive
However, this is in no sense to say that God was passive in reprobation. Reprobation was not merely an act of “permission” but a “willing” act of God (Works, 5:331). To deny that God “effectually worked” in reprobation, for Knox, was to deny the plain teaching of Scripture in places like Isaiah 45:7 and Amos 3:6 (Works, 5:335). Knox was conscious that here he was in danger of making God responsible for sin and so he protested his agreement with Calvin that “sinne was ever hatefull to God ... I utterly denie him to be the author of sinne” (Works, 5:170). God did not “move” people to sin, rather the “moving” agent was a combination of the Devil and a sinful and corrupt nature which delighted in sin. However, God did not simply give “ydle permission” for sin, rather “God giveth over the wicked into a lewd and reprobate mynd” and this is more than bare permission (Works, 5:346).
 
Shameful Parodies
However, Knox laboured against false conclusions from his teaching such as, “Let the Reprobate do what they can, yet they must be damned” (Works, 5:394). This he regarded as a shameful parody of his position. He held that “whosoever declineth from evill, and constantly to the end doth good, shall most certenly be saved” (Works, 5:394).  That the reprobate wilfully refused to believe meant their damnation is just. However, these rejections of false conclusions drawn from his teaching should not be taken as a “softening” of Knox’s position. Rather, Knox believed that reprobation served ultimately to magnify the glory of God in his justice (Works, 5:161). And, for him, God was more concerned with his glory that the fate of an individual impenitent sinner (Works, 5:41). This is reprobation at its starkest.
 
Knox and Later Teaching on Reprobation
It is not difficult to see the continuity between the teaching of Knox and later 17th century theologians. James Durham (1622-1658) too held that “the decree of Election doth necessarily infer the decree of Reprobation; for where there is an election of some, there is a preterition of others” (A Commentarie Upon the Book of the Revelation [Willow Street, PA.: Old Paths Publications, 2000], 400). He also held there was an important asymmetry to note here between election and reprobation. While the elect were saved because of the decree of election, the reprobate are damned not because of the decree of reprobation but because of their own “impenitence” and “guilt” (Revelation, 946). Even the noted supralapsarian Samuel Rutherford could define reprobation as an act “whereby he decreeth to pass by some and to leave them to the heardness of their own heart” (“Rutherfurd’s Catechism,” in Alexander Mitchell, ed., Catechisms of the Second Reformation [London: James Nesbit & Co., 1886], 163). 
 
Preaching Reprobation
Reprobation then, for Knox, and others is a revealed truth. And therefore it is part of “the whole counsel of God” which must be preached (Acts 20:27). However as Westminster Confession 3:8 reminds us, “The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care.” And nowhere is this care needed more than in preaching about reprobation. It can too easily be used to encourage fatalism. Calvin rightly warned against those who used the doctrine of election or reprobation to make “the statement that they who hear will not believe because they have been condemned.” He called this “cursing rather than teaching” and said “Augustine therefore, rightly bids such men begone from the church, as foolish teachers or perverse and foreboding prophets” (Institutes 3.23.14). Teach then the whole counsel of God as Knox did, but teach it with care.
Bernardinus de Moor, Continuous Commentary on Johannes Marckius’ Didactico-Elenctic Comendium of Christian Theology, trans. Stephen Dilday, vol. 1, 7 vols. (Culpeper, VA: L & G Reformation Translation Center, 2014).
 
Some cities in the world today sit on the remnants of ancient civilizations. Ruins of ancient Greece and Rome, for example, stand as monuments to the foundations of modern culture. This is similar to the present state of Reformed theology, since most of the theological texts in our heritage are buried in Latin tomes inaccessible to most. In order to profit from this rich tradition, these works need to be resurrected and become a self-conscious part of English-speaking theology. Stephen Dilday’s translation of de Moor’s commentary on Marckius brings a significant piece of this literature to light for a new generation of Reformed readers. This can help bring both clarity and unity to Reformed thought as we search the Scriptures, engage in theology, and address a new generation. This review briefly treats the significance and structure of this work and its contents.
 
This book provides a significant window into Reformed orthodox theology. Bernardinus de Moor was a professor at Leiden University in middle of the eighteenth-century. Richard Muller has categorized this period as “late orthodoxy,” in which Reformed theology struggled to maintain its historical form and content in light of shifting philosophical developments. De Moor maintained the best emphases of the so-called Dutch second Reformation by wedding biblical Reformed theology to fervent piety and devotion. He aimed to continue the work of his mentor, Johannes Marckius (1689-1731), who was a famous late orthodox author. As the title indicates, de Moor’s textbook is a commentary on Marckius’ Compendium of Didactic and Elenctic Christian Theology. Each chapter expounds a paragraph of Marckius’ text. The translator could have improved the text by providing chapter headings, rather than forcing readers to write them in as they progress. Rather than regurgitating the work of his mentor, de Moor explained this shorter work in seven volumes with rich expositions of Scripture, ample use of the church fathers and contemporary Dutch Reformed theologians, and evident piety. Dilday provides brief biographical sketches of all authors cited in the footnotes, making this book read partly like a “who’s who” of the period of Reformed orthodoxy. 
 
The content of de Moor’s work provides a refreshing challenge to modern approaches to the study of theology. This first volume treats the nature and definition of true theology. In contrast to post-Enlightenment Reformed theology, but in accord with the Reformed orthodox tradition, de Moor denied that theology is a science (186). He argued that if we follow Scripture, this discipline encompasses an intellectual (intelligence) bent of the mind created by the Spirit of God, the knowledge of God’s being and works (science), wisdom in knowing how to worship him and live to his glory, prudence in practicing God’s law, and art in producing benefits to the church (187). Removing obedience and piety from definitions of theology was tantamount to transforming theology into speculative philosophy (175). The end of true theology is the glory of God, with the subordinate end of man’s salvation and enjoying the triune God forever (262). He argued that God himself was the incomprehensible foundation of true theology (theologia achetypa; chapter 7) who communicates himself pre-eminently through Christ’s human nature as the pattern of theology both for angels and men (theologia ectypa; chapters 8-10). This grounded the knowledge of God in Christ’s person and effected it by his work. This makes this entire book explicitly trinitarian, since the Father reveals himself through his Son and makes us true theologians by his Spirit. This practical trinitarianism, which is often painfully absent in post-Enlightenment theology, was commonplace in Reformed Latin theology. The older Reformed emphasis on the character of the true theologian in communion with God as part of the definition of true theology is precisely what the church needs today to revive the vitality of her theology by aiming at the hearts of all who undertake its study.
 
De Moor’s commentary on Marckius was written for future ministers. The modern pastor needs theological precision coupled with devotional warmth in order to be clearer and more effective in the pulpit. Read de Moor as a window into our theological heritage. He may even spur some of you on to learn Latin in order to open the treasure trove of historic Reformed theology.
What do you do when two sides are unable to reconcile their theological differences? We have been looking at how the English Dissenters at the end of the seventeenth century dealt with this problem (see parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Thus far we have considered two things that they did to work out their issues. The first was to ask for help from a competent and objective source. The second was to address the other sides’ concerns and be willing to tolerate differences. The third thing that they did, and the one that we want to consider in this article as we draw our series on lessons from a past controversy to a close, was to rally around the confessions of faith.
 
When the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists officially joined together they did so on the basis of the Reformed confessions. According to the Union’s constitution, Heads of Agreement, members were required to own the doctrinal sections of one of the following confessions: Thirty-nine Articles, Westminster Confession of Faith, Westminster Shorter Catechism, Westminster Larger Catechism or Savoy Declaration. Shortly after the first signs of division, the United Ministers established a committee to deal with the issues. The committee met with Chauncy and Williams, the two primary antagonists, and they put together another document, An Agreement in Doctrine, which was a compilation from the previously mentioned confessions pertaining to the disputed doctrines. Everyone involved subscribed to this new document.
 
Rallying around the confessions to settle disputes makes good sense. After all, one purpose of confessions is to draw the line between acceptable and non-acceptable doctrine. Thus, one would think that two bickering parties should be able to tolerate their differences as long as they all subscribe to the same confessions. The problem in this case, however, as it tends to be in these types of heated debates, was that both sides viewed each other as outside the bounds of the confessions. Daniel Williams was firmly convinced that he was confessional and that his opponent Isaac Chauncy was not. Chauncy, not surprisingly, took the exact opposite position. As a result, both men believed that the other had misunderstood the meaning of the confessions and what the confessions do and do not allow. When this is the case, re-subscribing to the confessions simply won’t do and it didn’t for the Dissenters. 
 
The missing ingredient is the church. Christ has appointed elders to govern his church and they are to exercise their authority to settle disputes, as the early church had done at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). Without this authority, even the best of confessions, which are always open to (mis)interpretation, won’t be able to bring clarity and resolution to public controversy.
 
Since the Union was not a church, it couldn’t authoritatively resolve the matter, and what is more, its members wouldn’t be bound to heed any ruling it might make. Para-church organizations, like the Union, may of course freely remove members just as members may freely remove themselves; but they don’t possess any real authority to bind people together or to settle theological controversy. It is no wonder, then, that the United Ministers broke apart and stayed broken when the two parties clashed heads in the way that they did.
We continue our reading of the "Puritan Paperback," Sermons of the Great Ejection, with the third study of Anglican Thomas Watson (parts 1, 2). “The Great Ejection” was the explusion of nearly 20% of Anglican ministers from their cures in the 1662 Act of Uniformity.
 
Thomas Watson’s sermon begins in a transcription of his pastoral prayer of 8 July 1662 as the Ejection deadline drew near. Last time we examined its opening praise of God’s nature and the sweetness of His communion in the Lord’s Table. We compared Watson’s devotional concerning the Table alongside the three Exhortations, the Prayer Humble Access, and post-Communion Prayers of Oblation in the Book of Common Prayer 1552/1662 and noted the very close correlation between them.
 
Watson mournfully reflects in the prayer’s confession how the Christians of his day have so presumptiously neglected God: “We confess we are untuned and unstrung for every holy action; we are never out of tune to sin but always out of tune to pray.” Watson reminds us that even if every sin were pardoned that we have ever committed excepting this present prayer, there would still be sufficient sinfulness within it to judge us and the world!
 
After such a clear rendering of our failure and condition, Watson continues his prayer in a declaration of God’s grace and forgiveness. Once again there are echoes here of the declaration of forgiveness and the comfortable words of The Book of Common Prayer. The first is of pardon in Christ’s sacrifice: “Let there be peace in heaven, and peace in the court of conscience” from His efficacious work. The second is the guarantee of His preserving and sustaining power: “…draw thine image every day more lively upon us; give us a more lively hope and a more inflamed love of Christ.” The third is of His hearing the prayers of His faithful people. 
 
But I think it is Watson’s conclusion that will be the most surprising for the first-time reader. Watson leads his congregation to pray for King Charles II and his counselors. He prays that God will continue His providential care upon Charles and the realm:
 
“Shower down thy blessings (even the choicest of them) upon the head and heart of our dread Sovereign, Charles, by thy appointment of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith. Let him see wherein his chiefest interest lies.” 
 
Watson asks that Charles may bring peace and justice to the realm so that the gospel may flourish and the Church is strengthened.  This is the Sovereign’s chief interest. What may give one pause is how he also prays for the Privy Council, the very men who had set the 1662 Uniformity Act in place under which Watson and his congregation would soon suffer:
 
“Let the Lords of his Privy Council be a terror to evildoers and encouragers of those that do well.” 
 
And in an echo of Justin Martyr’s declaration, Watson’s concluding biding asks of God that Charles will find believers his most true subjects: “Let him count those his best subjects that are Christ’s subjects.”
 
Watson’s prayer for the King’s majesty and his government should not surprise us. The Westminster Directory of Public Worship and The Book of Common Prayer both require regular intercession for the Sovereign and government in daily or weekly worship. Consider this required prayer from The Book of Common Prayer order for the Lord’s Supper of today’s Reformed Episcopal Church:
 
O LORD, our heavenly Father, the high and mighty Ruler of the universe, Who does from Your throne behold all the dwellers upon earth; Most heartily we ask You, with Your favour to behold and bless Your servant [N], our President, [our Senate and Representatives in Congress assembled], [N], the Governor of our State (or Commonwealth), and all others in authority; and so replenish them with the grace of Your Holy Spirit, that they may always incline to Your will, and walk in Your way. Empower them plenteously with heavenly gifts; grant them in health and prosperity long to live; and finally, after this life, to attain everlasting joy and happiness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen 
 
In my travels to other churches on the Sundays of my vacation, I was again struck by the lack of prayer for the head of state and government in the pastoral prayers or in its omission in the specific prayers or collects of the liturgy. I am left to ponder in our troubled age, particularly as our Presidential election draws near in a country deeply divided, what the consequence may be for us and our Republic. 
 
How might you pray within family worship or with your congregation this coming Lord’s Day as The Book of Common Prayer requires and Thomas Watson demonstrates when to be Christ’s subjects in the years that follow will make us very troublesome citizens for those whom God has placed in authority over us?

Update (Monday, October 24): Because of the amount of sign-ups for this giveaway, we are now giving away two (2) of these bundles. Thank you for your interest and support! Please share the news with your friends.

Meet the Ps' friends at Reformation Heritage Books has provided us two 3-book bundles that we'd love to give away: Triumphing Over Sinful Fear by John Flavel, Stop Loving the World by William Greenhill, and The Fading of the Flesh by George Swinnock. Enter today!

USA mailing addresses only. One entry per person. Deadline to register is Friday, November 4.

We're happy to annouce that the winner of the well-loved, The Valley of Vision, is Dale S. of Milwaukee, WI.
Having considered John Knox's doctrine of predestination (part 1) and how he related it the attributes of immutability and omniscience (part 2), we now move specifically to election. 
 
Election
Election for Knox was the “eternall and immutable counsell of God, in which he hath purposed to choose to life everlasting, such as pleased his wisdom in Christ Jesus his Son.” He was clear that this election was not on the basis of forseen good works or faith; rather it was “without respect to be had to our merites or works.” Indeed, to maintain otherwise was to confound the effects of election with its cause; it is because an individual is elect that they demonstrate faith and obedience, not the other way round. The love of election was strictly limited – Knox “constantly denied” that it extended to all. As such election was a discriminatory decree proceeding from the will of God to “make a difference betwext man and man.” (Works, 5:204, 43, 61, 62)
 
Knox made a number of practical applications of his doctrine of election:
  1. Despite his pastoral difficulties with his mother-in-law’s lack of assurance, Knox held that his doctrine of election was vital for assurance. Only a doctrine of election which placed the stability of salvation not in ourselves but in the “eternal and immutable good pleasure of God” could produce a stable and established faith.
  2. He was of the opinion that his doctrine of election encouraged humility. As there was no cause in the individual to merit election, so there was no reason for pride.
  3. He also believed that his doctrine of election in no way encouraged careless living or neglect of holiness. Indeed he held that God had appointed his elect “to walk in purenesse and holiness … [and to] continually fight against the lustes and inordinate affections that remaine in this our corrupt nature.” Indeed without such evidence “then we can never be assured of our election...” As a concreted example of the ability of a firm belief in predestination to inspire commitment to discipline and godliness rather than licence, Knox pointed to the city of Geneva.
  4. Knox steadfastly refused to speculate on the number of the elect. While observing that the drift of scripture was to present the true church of God as a “litle flocke,” he was not willing “boldly to pronounce” whether more were reprobate than elect. The number of the elect, however, was fixed from all eternity. (Works, 5:26, 210, 210, 40)
 
Other Aspects of Knox’s Soteriology
Knox did not articulate a doctrine of predestination in isolation. His views clearly sprang from and were related to broader aspects of his soteriology. 
 
Central to the debate over predestination is the extent of the impact of the fall. Knox held that the fall was decreed and ordained by God. The effect of the fall was to transform that which God made “verie good” into “extreme evill.” This fall impacted not just Adam, but all of humanity which stood in him. Adam was therefore a representative head of the human race. All descending from Adam were therefore in a state of “hatred, sinne, and death” and as such incapable of saving faith. It was therefore natural for Knox to hold to sovereign election given his view of the bondage humanity was left in following the fall. (Works, 5:65, 91, 94, 242, 60, 396-397)
 
Accompanying his doctrine of the effects of the fall it is unsurprising to see him espouse a clear doctrine of effectual calling. Faith was “altogether the worke of God”. God “doth illuminate the eyes and mollifie the heartes of … [the elect] by the power of the Holy Ghost.” (Works, 5:281, 382)
 
Knox does not devote any significant attention to the extent of redemption in On Predestination. He affirms that “Christes death is sufficient for to redeme the sinnes of the whole world.” However, in another passage Knox seems to clearly imply a redemption that is particular to the elect. He states that it is “impossible” that Christ’s death would lack its “effect” which Knox sees as “the life of those that of his Father are committed to his charge, of whom impossible it is that any shal perish”. (Works, 5:250, 300)
 
Of fundamental importance to Knox was the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. The doctrine was stated clearly in his writings: “election and salvation are so sure in him, that so many as be Elected in him to life everlasting, shal by grace attein to the same.” Knox believed that the “whole controversie” over predestination really distilled down to this one point: “Whether that such as God, in his eternall counsel, hath Elected in Christ Jesus to life everlasting, can after be Reprobated, and so finally perish; and that shal ye never be able to prove.” For the elect to fail to persevere is “a thing no less impossible, then that it is that Christ Jesus shall cease to be head of his Churche, and the saviour of his bodie.” (Works, 5:279, 264, 255)
 
Conclusion
All this to say, Knox espoused a well-developed doctrine of election that was an integral part of his overall theological understanding. Next time, the darker side of election will be considered: reprobation.