In these theses, Johannes Maccovius articulates the Reformed scholastic doctrine of justification, defending its forensic nature against Roman Catholic errors and clarifying the distinct roles of God, Christ, the Spirit, faith, and works. Against the Papists, he insists that justification is a moral and forensic act of absolution and imputation rather than a real act of making one righteous by infusion, and that it removes guilt while sin remains in fact. He distinguishes between active justification (God’s act of not imputing sin and imputing Christ’s righteousness) and passive justification (the believer's reception of remission), noting that while active justification occurs once for all, passive justification is repeated as faith apprehends forgiveness. He clarifies that the righteousness imputed is moral rather than physical—truly possessed rather than merely putative—and that actual faith justifies effectively by receiving Christ’s merit, though this faith is never solitary. He concludes that good works follow justification declaratively rather than preceding it, and that justification, once pronounced, is irrevocable, even when the believer’s sense of it is temporarily obscured by temptation.
Read More
In these theses, Johannes Maccovius outlines the Reformed scholastic doctrine of regeneration, distinguishing it carefully from justification and detailing the nature of the believer’s struggle with sin. He affirms that regeneration is a real act of God—requiring creative power and occurring in an instant at its first moment, in which man is merely passive—whereas justification is a moral act. While perfect in its parts, regeneration is imperfect in its degrees and is not fully realized until the separation of the soul from the body. Against the Papists, he argues that the Decalogue’s command to love God with the whole heart reveals what man ought to do, not what he is able to do in his current state. Against the Arminians, he distinguishes the regenerate struggle against sin from that of the unregenerate: the regenerate sin from infirmity with a reluctant will and resist out of love for God and virtue, whereas the unregenerate resist sin only from fear of punishment. He concludes that while sin dwells in the regenerate, it does not reign; though the flesh may win occasional battles by taking the spirit captive, it cannot hold it captive, for the Spirit continually renews the battle and ultimately wins the war in Christ Jesus.
Read More
In these theses, Johannes Maccovius articulates the Reformed scholastic doctrine of good works, defending their necessity and imperfection while denying their meritorious efficacy in justification. He distinguishes between the substance and the circumstances of a work, arguing that while the unregenerate may perform works good in substance and moral quality—aided by God’s restraining grace—they cannot perform spiritual good, because their works lack the necessary circumstances of faith, divine command, and the glory of God. Consequently, the good works of the Gentiles are accidentally sinful, though God is pleased to reward them with temporal benefits and lighter punishments in His external judgment. Maccovius insists that good works are necessary as antecedents to eternal life (without holiness no man shall see God), not as causes, and that any reward given them is of grace rather than debt, since true merit requires conditions impossible for fallen man. He concludes that it is the “adverb”—the manner of acting from faith and for God’s glory—that makes a work good, and that works please God only because the person is first accepted by Him, as illustrated by God’s respect first to Abel and then to his sacrifice.
Read More
In these theses, Johannes Maccovius outlines the Reformed scholastic doctrine of the Church, distinguishing its various aspects and defending its fallibility against Roman Catholic claims of inerrancy. He distinguishes the Church as visible (by its marks and matter) and invisible (by the elect and faith), militant and triumphant, and universal and particular. He asserts that the Church’s internal government is monarchical under Christ alone, while its external government is democratic-aristocratic, with power residing in the body and its exercise in its officers. He distinguishes between greater excommunication and lesser suspension, and between ecclesiastical and political government, noting that the Church, unlike the state, does not punish the repentant. Crucially, he argues that particular churches can fail entirely, and that the Church can err in both morals and faith—even in fundamental doctrines like the resurrection—though not stubbornly or finally. Thus, the Church is the pillar of truth politically (as a society upholding it) rather than architectonically (as its source), and it is not to be believed unless it speaks from Scripture. He concludes that while membership in a particular church is not absolutely necessary for salvation (due to circumstances like solitary captivity), membership in the catholic Church is, and that God tolerates the world solely for the sake of the Church.
Read More
In these theses, Johannes Maccovius outlines the Reformed scholastic doctrine of the sacraments, defending the symbolic and spiritual nature of the signs against Roman Catholic and Lutheran errors. He argues that New Testament sacraments are called antitypes of the Old not because the Old sacraments were types—since a corporeal thing cannot be the antitype of a corporeal thing—but because they succeeded into the place of the Old. He distinguishes the material (the symbols) from the formal (the signification) in a sacrament, and classifies Baptism and circumcision as sacraments of initiation, while the Paschal Lamb and the Lord’s Supper are sacraments of nourishment. Against the Papists, he denies transubstantiation, and against the Lutherans, he denies consubstantiation, insisting that there is no transmutation of the signs into the things signified, nor any local existence of the thing in the sign; rather, the signs are called the things signified metaphorically, following sacramental locution as seen in the Old Testament. He locates the trope in the words of institution (“This is my body”) not in the subject or predicate, but in the copula, which signifies rather than asserts identity. He concludes that the change in the elements is a change of use rather than nature, that nothing has a sacramental character outside its legitimate use, and that a sign requires an analogy with the thing signified to be sacramental.
Read More
In these theses, Johannes Maccovius outlines the Reformed scholastic doctrine of the intermediate state, defending the immortality of the soul and the reality of heaven and hell against Roman Catholic and philosophical errors. Against the Papists, he rejects purgatory and the limbus of the fathers and of infants as unscriptural traditions, insisting that there are only two eternal destinations. He argues that the souls of the faithful in heaven do not yet enjoy perfect felicity—since they remain separated from their bodies and their brethren, and their enemies are not yet fully subdued—just as the damned do not yet suffer their full torment, as evidenced by the demons’ cry that Christ had come to torment them “before the time.” He denies the Papist teaching that departed souls see all earthly events in the essence of God as in a mirror, arguing that such perfect knowledge belongs to God alone, and that Scripture indicates the dead do not know what transpires on earth. He also rejects the Papist distinction that unbaptized infants suffer only the punishment of loss and not of sense, affirming that all the reprobate will experience weeping and gnashing of teeth. Finally, he asserts the immortality of the rational soul, clarifying that it is immortal privatively rather than negatively, and that while it cannot die a natural death like animate beings, it could theoretically be annihilated by the God who created it from nothing.
Read More
In these theses, Johannes Maccovius articulates the Reformed scholastic doctrine of the resurrection, defending its nature, causes, and manner against Socinian and chiliastic errors. He first distinguishes between resurrection as the general survival after death and the specific resurrection of the flesh, affirming that the same substantial flesh will rise though not with the same qualities. Against the Socinian objection that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” he argues that “flesh” there denotes the depravity of nature rather than the physical substance, citing Job 19 as proof of bodily resurrection. He distinguishes the causes of resurrection: believers rise by virtue of Christ’s resurrection as their Head, while reprobates rise solely by God's decree and power. He asserts that all will rise in fit bodies—not infantile or stunted—and with all their members intact, arguing against the Socinians that our ignorance of the future use of certain members does not preclude their restoration, since Christ rose with all His and the living will be changed with all theirs. Finally, he maintains that while the resurrection occurs successively in order, it happens at the same general time, rejecting the millennialist notion of a separate, earlier resurrection for martyrs, since Scripture teaches only two visible advents of Christ.
Read More
In these theses, Johannes Maccovius outlines the Reformed scholastic doctrine of the end times and the last judgment, defending the cosmic renewal and the nature of Christ’s judicial office against various errors. He asserts that the world will be purged by extraordinary fire and will perish according to its accidents, not its substance—just as creation and regeneration renew according to accidents as well as substance. Concerning the judgment, he distinguishes between particular judgment (at death) and universal judgment (at the last day), and between judgment of condemnation and absolution, affirming that believers are freed from the former. Against the Socinians, he argues that all souls return to God either to the Father or to the Judge, that the dead will be judged after their resurrection rather than remaining in death, and that the Father does judge, though not apart from the Son. He clarifies that Christ judges according to both natures—divinely by knowing sins and inflicting punishment, and humanly by pronouncing sentence—and that this universal judgment will occur swiftly in the air, not over thousands of years or confined to the valley of Jehoshaphat as the Papists claim. Finally, he notes that the judgment proceeds according to the law rather than the Gospel, and that some reprobates are “justified in part” only in the sense of receiving a lesser degree of punishment.
Read More
In these theses, Johannes Maccovius outlines the Reformed scholastic doctrine of glorification and the future life. He asserts that while the nature of glorification is the same for all believers, its degrees will vary, as illustrated by the comparison of the firmament to the stars. Concerning the beatific vision, he interprets the promise that “we shall see God as He is” not as an absolute comprehension of the divine essence—which remains impossible for creatures—but as a perfect knowledge of God insofar as He has declared Himself toward us in His benefits. He affirms the doctrine of mutual recognition in the afterlife, arguing from Scripture that the blessed will know not only those they knew in life but all others, just as Peter recognized Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration. Finally, he defines salvation as an aggregate of both deliverance from evil and the bestowal of eternal life, distinguishing human eternal life—which is experienced as salvation from a prior state of misery—from the eternal life of the angels, which they possess absolutely rather than as a deliverance.
Read More
In these theses, Johannes Maccovius outlines the Reformed scholastic doctrine of condemnation and hell. He asserts that condemnation is an aggregate being comprising both the punishment of loss and the punishment of sense, with the latter also being aggregate—consisting of the bite of conscience, anguish, horrors, and trouble arising from the place and from society with devils and other reprobates. He argues that the fire of hell is figurative rather than material, since it must act upon immaterial devils. He uniquely claims that there will be no despair in hell, reasoning that despair is the privation of a promise, and where there are no promises—as in hell—its opposite cannot exist. He affirms that the reprobate will continue to sin in hell through blasphemy, and that hell will be located in a specific place, most probably the lower regions or the earth itself, though he concludes that the exact location matters less than the urgency of ordering one's life to avoid it.
Read More
In these theses, Johannes Maccovius outlines the logic of theological distinctions, establishing criteria for their validity and exposing common fallacies. He distinguishes between general distinctions (using common terms like “absolutely” and “relatively”) and special distinctions (belonging to particular disciplines). He sets forth three conditions for valid diverse respects: agreement (drawn from the inward nature of the thing, not contradicting it), diversity (the distinction must differ from what it distinguishes, avoiding tautologies like “a body is sensible in an insensible mode”), and perspicuity (the distinction must be clear and explicable, not chimerical or glassy). He distinguishes between respects of diverse things (sought from the forms themselves, as between art and artisan, substance and accident) and respects of diverse modes (the multiple determination of one thing, as mediately/immediately, naturally/sacramentally). He insists that the mode of predicating follows the mode of being—thus bread cannot be called the body of Christ essentially, only sacramentally. Against sophistry, he demonstrates the fallacy of arguing from an unlimited proposition to a limited one, classifying five ways something is said “according to a certain respect”: reduplicatively (by essence), generically, partially, external-accidentally, and internal-accidentally. He applies this against the Arians, who confuse Christ's subordination in office with subordination in essence. He concludes that words denoting privation apply to creatures, while in God they always denote mere negation.
Read More
1821-James Chrystie.-This book is a polemical defense of the true visible church against Dr. John M. Mason’s Plea for Sacramental Communion on Catholic Principles. Operating within the confessional framework of the Scots and Belgic Confessions—where there are only true churches or false churches, and denominationalism is itself sectarianism—the author demonstrates that Mason’s system dissolves the essential distinction between the two. Mason argues that all professing Christians should be admitted to the Lord’s Supper regardless of doctrinal differences, but the author shows this empties “credible profession” of definable content, misreads Scripture (the Jerusalem Council disowned false teachers, it did not counsel forbearance of error), and contradicts the historic Reformed tradition. Terms of communion are not parochial boundary markers between denominations but the necessary means by which the true church, identified by the pure preaching of the Word, right administration of the sacraments, and faithful exercise of discipline, excludes the false and maintains fidelity to Christ her Head. Mason’s error is not merely that he proposes a minimal creed, but that he destroys the visibility of the true church by admitting to her sacraments those who belong to false churches, thereby making union with Christ’s body a matter of subjective profession rather than objective truth confessed.
Read More
The author recounts how, after five years of public silence following the publication of Dr. Mason’s Plea for Sacramental Communion on Catholic Principles, he felt compelled to write a response challenging its liberal approach to the Lord’s Table. He confesses that he once embraced the very principles Mason advocates, finding them attractive for their apparent Christian love and freedom from denominational restraint. However, his views underwent a decisive revolution when he compared a passage in the Plea with Calvin's Institutes and recognized that Mason’s system obliterates the biblical distinction between the elect church and the world, substituting a shallow sacramental unity for substantive agreement in truth. He disclaims any personal hostility toward Mason or desire to perpetuate unnecessary division, but insists that the truth of God’s word and the discipline of Christ’s house must not be surrendered for the mere shadow of a union that lacks hearty agreement in the faith.
Read More
The author argues that Dr. Mason’s “Plea” rests on a dangerous lack of precision regarding the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. He contends that Mason misrepresents the primitive church by claiming it tolerated doctrinal differences without providing historical evidence, and that Mason’s analogy of the body—suggesting some truths are non-essential like a finger—is flawed because even minor error can lead to spiritual death. The author further critiques Mason’s assertion that only the knowing embrace of error is sinful, arguing that ignorant error still requires divine mercy. Most significantly, he attacks Mason’s specific list of vital doctrines as woefully deficient: it omits church government and the sacraments, employs undefined terms that heretics like Arminians can exploit to feign orthodoxy, and fails to include crucial doctrines such as predestination and particular grace, thereby leaving the church vulnerable to the enemy.
Read More
The author argues that Dr. Mason’s system of liberal communion fundamentally perverts God’s design for the church—which is to gather and perfect the elect—by reducing doctrinal standards merely to accommodate carnal men. By employing a vague and diminished doctrinal “key” for admission that omits vital truths regarding election, sin, and judgment, the system inevitably floods the church with worldly and heretical professors. Furthermore, this laxity profanes the sacraments, as ignorant and ungodly partakers incur divine judgment upon themselves, resulting in the spiritual weakness, sickness, and decline of the church. The author warns that this “Plea” accelerates the current age’s dangerous trend of prioritizing numerical expansion over doctrinal purity, exposing the church to further divine chastisement.
Read More
The author defends the necessity and legitimacy of creeds and confessions as terms of communion, arguing that opposition to them stems from a carnal dislike of restraint rather than valid principle. Because individuals and sects interpret the Bible differently—as seen in the divide between orthodox Christians and Socinians, or the early church and the Jews—the Scriptures alone cannot serve as sufficient terms of communion; the church must require assent to what the Scriptures mean.
The author refutes Dr. Mason’s assertion that confessions should apply only to ministers and not private members. Mason argues that the “mass of mankind” lacks the intellectual capacity to grasp complex doctrinal standards. The author counters that this view insults the clarity of the Westminster Confession—which was designed for the instruction of the unlearned—and denies the illuminating work of the Spirit, who enables all of God’s elect to understand the truth. Furthermore, if laypeople are not acquainted with the church’s creed, they cannot fulfill their biblical duty to test the doctrines of their teachers, nor can they make an intelligent profession of faith at the sacraments. Abandoning creeds as terms of communion removes the only safeguard against heretical and worldly professors, effectively erasing the distinction between the church and the world.
Read More
This chapter argues that the historical authorities cited in Dr. Mason’s Plea—Augustine, Calvin, the Synod of Dort, and the English Puritan divines—do not support his system of broad church communion, but rather testify against it. The author demonstrates that Augustine’s lifelong battle against Pelagianism proves he would never have consented to a creed silent on the doctrines of grace; that Calvin’s insistence on agreement in doctrine and his description of the church as “the faithful guardian of the truth” directly contradict Mason’s proposed basis of communion; that the Synod of Dort explicitly excommunicated the Arminians for holding errors which Mason’s minimal creed tolerates; and that the English Presbyterians suffered precisely because they refused to compromise on doctrine, worship, and government. The chapter concludes that while the faithful have always desired church unity, they sought it only on the foundation of truth clearly confessed, not through the forbearance of error or ambiguous creeds that leave contested points undetermined.
Read More
This chapter critiques Dr. Mason’s biblical arguments for broad sacramental communion, contending that he fundamentally misinterprets Scripture to justify an undefined, doctrinally minimal basis for church fellowship. The author argues that Dr. Mason’s appeal to the unity of the church (1 Corinthians 12) ignores the visible church’s essential characteristics—subjection to Christ’s authority, profession of one faith, and clear doctrinal boundaries—and perverts the Apostle’s purpose from correcting factional pride into sanctioning unlimited communion regardless of belief. Examining Dr. Mason’s five biblical precedents (Pentecost, the Ethiopian eunuch, Saul’s conversion, Cornelius, and the Jerusalem Council), the author demonstrates that each case actually required substantial doctrinal knowledge and credible profession, not the vague, undefined profession Dr. Mason advocates. Particularly, he faults Dr. Mason for dismissing the question of how to ascertain Christian character—a dismissal he calls both absurd and impious—and for falsely claiming the Jerusalem Council counseled mutual forbearance of “important differences,” when it actually disowned false teachers and prohibited specific sins. The chapter concludes that “Christian love” cannot supersede the higher obligation of love to God, which demands separation from doctrinal error rather than communion with it.
Read More
1859-Anonymous.-“The True Psalmody” argues that the inspired Book of Psalms alone constitutes the church’s divinely appointed and sufficient manual of praise, to the absolute exclusion of uninspired human hymns. The work demonstrates that the Psalms possess the seal of divine appointment for New Testament worship, richly present Christ in His sufferings and glory, and perfectly adapt to every believer’s experience, while answering common objections regarding their supposedly obsolete or unchristian character. Conversely, it contends that the use of uninspired hymns lacks scriptural warrant, introduces doctrinal error and sectarian division into the church, and degrades congregational singing, ultimately asserting that faithfulness to God’s worship requires singing His own inspired words rather than the fallible compositions of men.
Read More
Cooke recounts his personal journey from using hymns in worship to embracing exclusive psalmody, describing how illness and solitude led him to find uninspired hymns “miserable comforters” compared to the Psalms. He explains his interpretive breakthrough: recognizing Christ as the subject of the Psalms (e.g., the “man” of Psalms 1 and 24), which unlocked their devotional power. He concludes that only inspired Psalms are free from doctrinal error, whereas every hymn collection he examined contained serious theological defects.
Read More