No room for hypothetical universalism

[MW]

John Murray (Collected Writings, 4:255-256:

It has been maintained that the Assembly formulated at least one section so as to allow for an Amyraldian doctrine of the atonement. The Minutes of the Assembly give no support to this contention. There are three principles enunciated in the Confession that exclude the Amyraldian view. The first is that redemption has been purchased for the elect. 'The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself ... purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him' (chapter 8, section 5). The second is that impetration and application are coextensive. 'To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same' (chapter 8, section 8). This excludes any form of universal atonement. The redemption purchased includes, as the preceding quotation implies, the purchase of an everlasting inheritance, and this is therefore said to be communicated to all for whom redemption was purchased. If all were included then all would be the partakers of the everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, a position clearly denied in the Confession elsewhere. The third principle is the exclusiveness of redemption. 'Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only' (chapter 3, section 6). In the preceding sentence the elect are said to have been 'redeemed by Christ'; now it is said that they alone are redeemed. Other lines of argument could be elicited from the Confession to show that it allowed for no form of universal atonement, not even the hypothetical universalism propounded on the floor of the Assembly. But the foregoing principles are sufficient to show that the particularism in terms of which the whole doctrine of salvation is constructed is not sacrificed at the point of the atonement.

 

[MW]

Robert Shaw (Exposition of the Westminster Confession, 112-113), commenting on WCF 8.8, "To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same:"

What language, then, could affirm more explicitly than that here employed, that the atonement of Christ is specific and limited -- that it is neither universal nor indefinite, but restricted to the elect, who shall be saved from wrath through him.

The sacrifice of Christ derived infinite value from the dignity of his person; it must, therefore, have been intrinsically sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole human race had it been so intended; but, in the designation of the Father, and in the intention of Christ himself, it was limited to a definite number, who shall ultimately obtain salvation.

 

[MW]

A. A. Hodge (The Confession of Faith, 151), commenting on WCF 8.5, "purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him:"

This proves, therefore — (1.) That Christ did not die simply to make the salvation of those for whom he died possible — i.e., to remove legal obstructions to their salvation — but that he died with the design and effect of actually securing their salvation and of endowing them gratuitously with an inalienable title to heaven. (2.) It proves, in the second place, that the vicarious sufferings of Christ must have been, in design and effect, personal and definite as to their object. Salvation must be applied to all those for whom it was purchased. Since not the possibility or opportunity for reconciliation, but actual reconciliation itself was purchased: since not only reconciliation, but a title to an eternal inheritance was purchased, it follows (a.) That "to all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same." Conf. Faith, ch. 8 § 8. And (b.) That he who never receives the inheritance, and to whom the purchased grace is never applied, is not one of the persons for whom it was purchased.

 

[MW]

Benjamin B. Warfield ('The Westminster Assembly and Its Work,' The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, 6:142), examining the historical debate surrounding WCF 3.6, "Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only:"

The weight of the debate was clearly on the side of the proposition proposed, and on that score alone we cannot feel surprise that it was retained in the Confession.

Ibid., 143:

the natural sense of the clause is clearly that no one of the transactions here brought together is to be affirmed of the non-elect. And this impression is increased by the broader context, not to speak of the parallel passages in 8.3 and 5. It might seem somewhat more to the point, possibly, to recall that in this section the language is so ordered as to seem to deal with the actual ordo salutis rather than directly with the ordo decretorum. It is asserted that the ordo salutis is the result of the decreeing of the means by which the elect are brought to glory. But what is subsequently asserted is that none but the elect are (actually) redeemed by Christ, effectually called, etc...

 

[MW]

Robert Letham (The Westminster Assembly, 182), supports Warfield's assessment:

Warfield is correct in claiming that the clause was intended to exclude hypothetical universalism by ensuring that each element in the ordo salutis (order of salvation) was recognized as intended only for the elect, and was not merely a description of the fact that only the elect receive the benefits.

 

[MW]

William Cunningham (Historical Theology, 2:328), provides extended analysis of the Confession to demonstrate its exclusion of universalist tendencies as sometimes held by "Calvinists." He demonstrates that "redemption" was understood at the time to refer to the purchase of redemption, and the Confession's language must be taken as excluding any universal reference in the purchase of redemption:

The Confession, therefore, must be regarded as teaching, that it is not true of any but the elect only that they are redeemed by Christ, any more than it is true that any others are called, justified, or saved. Here I may remark by the way, that though many modern defenders of a universal atonement regard the word redemption as including the application as well as the impetration of pardon and reconciliation, — and, in this sense, disclaim the doctrine of universal redemption, — yet a different phraseology was commonly used in theological discussions about the period at which the Confession was prepared, and in the seventeenth century generally. Then the defenders of a universal atonement generally maintained, without any hesitation, the doctrine of universal redemption, — using the word, of course, to describe only the impetration, and not the application, of spiritual and saving blessings; and this holds true, both of those who admitted, and of those who denied, the Calvinistic doctrine of election. Of the first of these cases (the Calvinists) we have an instance in Richard Baxter's work, which he entitled Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ; and of the second (the Arminians) in Dr. Isaac Barrow's sermons, entitled The Doctrine of Universal Redemption Asserted and Explained.

 

[MW]

I conclude by referencing an historical essay which has been written for the express purpose of demonstrating the inaccuracies of the present day thesis which supposes the Assembly intended to make room for hypothetical universalism.

Sebastian Rehnman, 'A Particular Defence of Particularism,' Journal of Reformed Theology 6 (2012) 24-34.

He makes the following observation, 31:

the Westminster Assembly consistently maintains particularism. I deny that the universalists at Westminster ‘were able to restrain the final codification sufficiently for there to be some significant ambiguity at crucial places’ (148). I do not deny that the issue of particularism versus universalism was debated at Westminster nor that contemporary universalists claimed their teaching compatible and remained active at the synod. But the mere presence of a plurality of views in session does not imply a plurality of views in confession. Clearly, the final formulation should interpret (the outcome of) the earlier discussion and not the earlier discussion the final formulation. Although WCF could be ambiguous or alternatively rendered on this subject (as on some other ones), it is actually precise and clear about the strictly particular divine intention.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

I really appreciate this collection of quotes, Matthew. Excellent. As an aside, I also would point to Cunningham (2:332) on the use of the oft quoted "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect.

A distinction was generally employed by the schoolmen, which has often been adverted to in this discussion, and which it may be proper to explain. They were accustomed to say, that Christ died sufficiently for all men, and efficaciously for the elect, — sufficientur pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis. Some orthodox divines, who wrote before the extent of the atonement had been made the subject of full, formal, and elaborate discussion, and Calvin himself among the rest, — admitted the truth of this scholastic position. But after controversy had thrown its full light upon the subject, orthodox divines generally refused to adopt this mode of stating the point, because it seemed to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention of dying in the room of all, and of benefiting all by the proper effects of His death, as an atonement or propitiation; not that they doubted or denied the intrinsic sufficiency of His death for the redemption of all men, but because the statement — whether originally so intended or not — was so expressed as to suffest the idea, that Christ, in dying, desired and intended that all men should partake in the proper and peculiar effects of the shedding of His blood. Calvinists do not object to say that the death of Christ — viewed objectively, apart from His purpose or design — was sufficient for all, and efficacious for the elect, because this statement in the first clause merely asserts its infinite intrinsic sufficiency, which they admit; whereas the original scholastic form of the statement, — namely, that He died sufficiently for all, — seems to indicate that, when He died, He intended that all should derive some saving and permanent benefit from His death.

.

 

[lynnie]

I conclude by referencing an historical essay which has been written for the express purpose of demonstrating the inaccuracies of the present day thesis which supposes the Assembly intended to make room for hypothetical universalism.

Sebastian Rehnman, 'A Particular Defence of Particularism,' Journal of Reformed Theology 6 (2012) 24-34.

He makes the following observation, 31:

the Westminster Assembly consistently maintains particularism. I deny that the universalists at Westminster ‘were able to restrain the final codification sufficiently for there to be some significant ambiguity at crucial places’ (148). I do not deny that the issue of particularism versus universalism was debated at Westminster nor that contemporary universalists claimed their teaching compatible and remained active at the synod. But the mere presence of a plurality of views in session does not imply a plurality of views in confession. Clearly, the final formulation should interpret (the outcome of) the earlier discussion and not the earlier discussion the final formulation. Although WCF could be ambiguous or alternatively rendered on this subject (as on some other ones), it is actually precise and clear about the strictly particular divine intention.

Fascinating history. I had no idea there was a debate. Maybe I should know this, but did they use the letters TULIP by then? And were only a small minority 4 pointers or was it a significant number?

I assumed the Puritans all held to L because of Owen, but was it as debated among the early Puritans as it was writing the WCF?

Thanks for the thread by the way. Its handy for a search, would you consider maybe putting "particular atonement", or limited, in the title so it comes up? Just an idea. Sometimes I do a search here and pull up something from years ago, but the title has got to be just right to find a subject, and you want people to find threads like this.

 

[py3ak]

Its handy for a search, would you consider maybe putting "particular atonement", or limited, in the title so it comes up? Just an idea. Sometimes I do a search here and pull up something from years ago, but the title has got to be just right to find a subject, and you want people to find threads like this.

I added a bunch of tags. Maybe try a search and see if it comes up?

 

[timfost]

Fesko:

A number of commentators, including B. B. Warfield (1851–1921), A. A. Hodge (1823–1886), and John Murray, have maintained that the Standards leave no room for Amyraldianism. However, Warfield, Hodge, and Murray share in the idea that all hypothetical universalists were Amyraldians, rather than devotees of the earlier and different strand of universalism found in Ussher, Davenant, and the British delegation to Dort.

I recommended the book, along with other books and articles, to point out that Amyraldism and hypothetical universalism were not seen as the same thing by historians.

 

[MW]

Fesko:

A number of commentators, including B. B. Warfield (1851–1921), A. A. Hodge (1823–1886), and John Murray, have maintained that the Standards leave no room for Amyraldianism.

Murray says, "it allowed for no form of universal atonement, not even the hypothetical universalism propounded on the floor of the Assembly." He distinguished and included the different variety. Warfield's statement regarding the retention of the proposition reflects upon the objections made in the Assembly itself. Fesko's reasoning is therefore null and void.

Again, the only reason I referenced Fesko was to show there was a difference between Amyradism and English hypothetical universalism. The fact there was a difference in how theologians taught hypothetical universalism does not change the Standards' attitude towards hypothetical universalism in general.

 

[MW]

I assumed the Puritans all held to L because of Owen, but was it as debated among the early Puritans as it was writing the WCF?

One of the reasons for the calling of the Assembly was "for vindicating and clearing of the doctrine of the said Church [of England] from false aspersions and interpretations." There was an Arminian interpretation of the 39 Articles which came through the high church sacramental party, and different Puritans came to slightly different positions in opposition to it.

It is questionable whether those who advocated hypothetical universalism would have said they denied particular redemption. For example, a work on the two covenants is attributed to Edmund Calamy, in which he explicitly taught particular redemption. It may be that they were struggling in different ways to formulate the way the gospel offers redemption through Christ. Thankfully the Confession has resolved that struggle and removed the problems introduced by the theological battles of the period.

 

[timfost]

Fascinating history. I had no idea there was a debate. Maybe I should know this, but did they use the letters TULIP by then? And were only a small minority 4 pointers or was it a significant number?

This might help (not that I would call them all 4-pointers):

http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=7147

 

[MW]

This might help (not that I would call them all 4-pointers):

http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=7147

This is basically what Roman Catholics are doing when they attempt to claim ancient writers as their "fathers." For an alternative reading of the "fathers" one might consult John Gill's Cause of God and Truth. There is enough ambiguity in their writings to show that an unqualified appeal to disparate sayings is too simplistic to be helpful. The same obviously applies to the reformers prior to the subject being fully discussed at the Synod of Dort. Unless an author specifically addresses the issue, it is putting words in the author's mouth to make him speak to the issue. A good historian will always try to understand his sources in context.

 

[timfost]

Rev. Winzer,

I agree that sources should be read in their contexts. I believe that the site appropriately sources its materials in case anyone wants to look into the quotes.

Blessings

 

[MW]

I agree that sources should be read in their contexts. I believe that the site appropriately sources its materials in case anyone wants to look into the quotes.

We have already seen on the other thread how William Twisse is decontextualised. For the sake of this thread it will suffice to point out another clear instance of decontextualisation, and that is apparent in the case of Thomas Ford. He explicitly states,

All this while I forget not, what a controversy there is among the Learned, about the extent of Christ’s death, but I dare not touch with it; and the rather, because it no way concerns me, in the main design of this discourse.

Yes, notwithstanding this clear denial that he was touching on the subject, the so-called "Calvin and Calvinism" site quotes his statements as touching on the subject. That is a fair specimen of the a-historical nature of the site. It fails to take into account polemics, pastoral concerns, and many other facets which are important for interpreting a speaker's words.

 

[lynnie]

Tim- thanks; an amazing list.

Ruben, when I do a search under limited, definite, or particular atonement, this thread does not come up on the first page of any of them, although there are many multiple pages in total.( I am behind in what I need to get done from getting distracted, ha. One thread about M L-J had a link about his successor Kendall who brought in the Toronto Holy laughter and it was mind boggling.)

I guess anybody trying to explore this subject will find plenty, and no doubt if they bring it up again someone can link this set of quotes. I looked at some old threads back to 2010, there is so much interesting material at PB.....

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I recently became aware of this new movement to identify hypothetical universalism among the divines. It seems clear that there were several, and that they were not Amyraldian. But I still don't think the Standards "allow" it. Their view clearly did not shape the language or system articulated in the Confession. And it certainly did not prevail into the next generation of orthodoxy who put the Confession into practice (at least in Scotland...). I'll be watching this historical debate closely. I think it's a pretty short jump from saying the Confession allowed hypothetical universalism then to we should allow it now. Has anyone seen any arguments advocating that yet?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I recently became aware of this new movement to identify hypothetical universalism among the divines. It seems clear that there were several, and that they were not Amyraldian. But I still don't think the Standards "allow" it. Their view clearly did not shape the language or system articulated in the Confession. And it certainly did not prevail into the next generation of orthodoxy who put the Confession into practice (at least in Scotland...). I'll be watching this historical debate closely. I think it's a pretty short jump from saying the Confession allowed hypothetical universalism then to we should allow it now. Has anyone seen any arguments advocating that yet?

I haven't seen anything within the denomination.

It seems to me that anyone arguing that the presence of a view means that the Assembly's work permitted that view has either not participated in the Presbyterian process or, if they have, they conveniently forget what the process looks like.

The way things take shape can often be very contentious - to the point that I've seen several committees where men have to repent to one another for the process. There are often intractable views on either side of the equation. At the last GA I thought the Overture by David Coffin would be approved by the Assembly. Had it been approved there would have been no way for it to both be the case that a minister could be compelled to testify by Presbytery and that he could also *not* be compelled to testify. The numbers were close. With a different mix, we might have passed that Overture by a .1% margin.

Now, imagine that someone 400 years ago finds that about 50% of the Assembly was against the motion. Could they reasonably conclude that the presence of almost half the Assembly in opposition means that their view is represented and allowed in the BCO? No. It's ludicrous but we see this every time some view arises. We saw it with the Federal Vision as well.

1. Find some Puritan somewhere with something that is sort of like your view or some words that sound like he agrees with your view.
2. Demonstrate that he was one of the Westminster Divines or cut the hair of a dude who knew one of the Divines.
3. Stir
4. Voila! Your view is within the bounds of the Confession!

I've used this analogy with friends but far too many Elders today treat the Westminster Standards like a car engine - and they're not mechanics. They're not sure how the engine works but it has all sorts of different parts. They see the oil cap and they say: "I take exception to oil caps". They're not sure how it relates to the rest of the engine but they're certain that they can hold to a denial of the "strict oil cap" position and still hold to the idea that they believe "in the engine" (or I guess they just have a "good faith" subscription in the idea of the engine).

Hypothetical Universalism is probably not like an oil cap but it's like an air filter. The engine will run for a while but it's going to eventually get really dirty and break down. As we saw in another thread about the necessity of limited atonement, the scope is "bound" precisely because we see Christ as the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace and all the different evangelical graces flow from that point. People want to get around limited atonement or take edges off of it but it ultimately all comes back around to Covenant theology and how taking one piece out affects the operation and understanding of the whole thing.

It may be the case that a hypothetical engine exists that doesn't need an air filter but one will have to describe how that engine fits together and is designed. It's not enough to say that one can be more or less "strict" about air filters for a typical car engine.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I agree with you. Personally, I think the impetus behind hypothetical universalism was not driven by a desire to completely overhaul the particularist "engine" but by their concern to provide legitimate grounds for proclaiming the free offer of the gospel to all, or what Boston later called "the ministerial offer". But I believe the Confession provides that sufficiently within the particularist frame.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I agree with you. Personally, I think the impetus behind hypothetical universalism was not driven by a desire to completely overhaul the particularist "engine" but by their concern to provide legitimate grounds for proclaiming the free offer of the gospel to all, or what Boston later called "the ministerial offer". But I believe the Confession provides that sufficiently within the particularist frame.

I agree. I personally think that "concerns" that the Gospel cannot be liberally offered when one accepts the comprehensive nature of the Atonement for the elect are ultimately found in a theology that drifts away from ectypal theology (theology accomadated to the creature) and into archetypal theology (theology as God understands in Himself). It's enough for God to let us know, by way of the Mediator that the elect are fully atoned for and that the Gospel is to be proclaimed to all men, as sinners, with the Promise of eternal life to all who would believe. Some will always protest, to a more or less degree, that the offer cannot be sincere unless they can get inside the mind of God and see that He more or less feels a certain way toward a particular sinner. Yet, as creatures, we can only fall back on the historical administration of the Covenant as we experience it. It is sufficient to know that we minister the Words of eternal life and let God be God with the rest. The Atonment, being particular and comprehensive, gives the greatest possible confidence of the offer of the Gospel because it leaves nothing for the sinner but the empty hand of reception that reaches out by the Spirit's power. The moment we add to the sinner some condition that is ultimately found differentiated in Himself then we remove from what Christ has purchased for us and claim it not a gift but our own work.

 

[MW]

I agree with you. Personally, I think the impetus behind hypothetical universalism was not driven by a desire to completely overhaul the particularist "engine" but by their concern to provide legitimate grounds for proclaiming the free offer of the gospel to all, or what Boston later called "the ministerial offer". But I believe the Confession provides that sufficiently within the particularist frame.

I agree. I personally think that "concerns" that the Gospel cannot be liberally offered when one accepts the comprehensive nature of the Atonement for the elect are ultimately found in a theology that drifts away from ectypal theology (theology accomadated to the creature) and into archetypal theology (theology as God understands in Himself). It's enough for God to let us know, by way of the Mediator that the elect are fully atoned for and that the Gospel is to be proclaimed to all men, as sinners, with the Promise of eternal life to all who would believe. Some will always protest, to a more or less degree, that the offer cannot be sincere unless they can get inside the mind of God and see that He more or less feels a certain way toward a particular sinner. Yet, as creatures, we can only fall back on the historical administration of the Covenant as we experience it. It is sufficient to know that we minister the Words of eternal life and let God be God with the rest. The Atonment, being particular and comprehensive, gives the greatest possible confidence of the offer of the Gospel because it leaves nothing for the sinner but the empty hand of reception that reaches out by the Spirit's power. The moment we add to the sinner some condition that is ultimately found differentiated in Himself then we remove from what Christ has purchased for us and claim it not a gift but our own work.

Excellent points! and they well reflect the concerns of the particular redemption literature of the 17th century.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I agree that sources should be read in their contexts. I believe that the site appropriately sources its materials in case anyone wants to look into the quotes.

We have already seen on the other thread how William Twisse is decontextualised. For the sake of this thread it will suffice to point out another clear instance of decontextualisation, and that is apparent in the case of Thomas Ford. He explicitly states,

All this while I forget not, what a controversy there is among the Learned, about the extent of Christ’s death, but I dare not touch with it; and the rather, because it no way concerns me, in the main design of this discourse.

Yes, notwithstanding this clear denial that he was touching on the subject, the so-called "Calvin and Calvinism" site quotes his statements as touching on the subject. That is a fair specimen of the a-historical nature of the site. It fails to take into account polemics, pastoral concerns, and many other facets which are important for interpreting a speaker's words.

And the fellow does it time and again:

http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?p=11670

 

[MW]

And the fellow does it time and again:

http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?p=11670

The central thesis of this paper rejects historic Calvinism. The author writes, "Thus the aim of this essay is to return to the defense of our thesis that a limited satisfaction for human sin falsifies the free, sincere and well-meant offer."

In 1647, while the Confession was still under advisement in the Parliament, the united ministers of London wrote their "Testimony for the Truth of Jesus Christ," and explicitly "abominated" the so-called "Calvin and Calvinism" thesis. They wrote,

But more particularly we abominate these infamous and pernicious Errours of late published among us, and hereafter recited in this ensuing Catalogue. viz....

Errours touching universal, or general Redemption...

That, If God command the Gospel to be preached to all, and Christ died only for some, then God commands a lie to be preached to the most part of men. — Fulnesse of Gods love. by L.S. 1643. p.15.

That, Those that teach, that Christ died only for a few, take away the true Gospel, and ground of Faith; and introduce a false Gospel, which affords men no ground to believe. — Fulnesse of Gods love. by L.S. 1643. p.16[?].

This work was signed by the following divines from the Westminster Assembly:

William Gouge Pastor of Blackfriers. Lond.
though. Gataker Pastor of the Church at Rotherhith.
George Walker Pastor of Iohn Evangelists.
Daniel Cawdrey Preacher at Martins in the Fields.
Nicolas Proffet Minister of Fosters.
Anthony Tuckney Minister of Michaels Quern.
Edm. Calamy Pastor of Mary Aldermanbury.
Simeon Ashe Minister of Michael Basingshaw.
though. Case Minister of Mary Magd. Milkstreet.
La. Seaman Minister of Alh. Breadstreet.
Stanley Gower Minister of Martins Ludgate.
Henr. Wilkinson Min. of Dustans in the East.
Anthony Burgesse Minister of the Gospel at Lawrence Jewry.

It was also signed by the following ministers of London:

John Downame Pastor of Great Allhallowes Thames-street.
And. Janeway Min. of Allhallows in the Wall.
Arthur Jackson Pastor of Michaels Wood-street.
Jo. Wall Minister of Michael Cornhill.
Char. Offspring Pastor of Antholins.
Henry Robrough Pastor of Leonards East-Cheap.
John Fathers Pastor of George Southwark.
Sa. Clark Minister of Bennet Fynk.
though. Cawton Past. of Bartholomewes Exchange.
Ja. Nalton Pastor of Leonards Fosterlane.
Ja. Cranford Pastor of Christophers.
Fran. Roberts Pastor of the Church at Austins. Lond.
William Jenkyn Pastor of Christchurch. Lond.
Elidad Blackwell Pastor of Andrew Vndershaft.
Fulk Bellers Preacher of the Gospel at Michaels Cornehill.
John Wallis Minister of Gabriel Fen-Church.
Ro Mercer Minister of the Gospel.
Christopher Love Pastor of Anne Aldersgate. Lo.
George Fawler Minister of Bridewell.
Matthew Haviland Pastor of Trinity.
Pet. Witham Pastor of Albanes Woodstreet.
William Harrison Minister of Grass Church.
W. Wickins Pastor of Andrew Hubbard.
Fran. Peck Minister of the Gospel.
John Sheffield Minister of Swithins.
Thomas Gouge Pastor of Sepulchers Lond.
Ra Robinson Pastor of Mary Woolnoth Lumbardstreet. Lond.
William Taylor Pastor of Stephens Colemanstreet.
John Glascock Min. of Mildred Bread-street.
William Blackmore of Peters Cornhill.
Nath. Stanyforth Min. of Mary Bothaw. Lon.
Thomas Whately Pastor of Wool-Church.
Thomas Watson Pastor of Stephens Walbrook. Lond.
John After Minister of Allhallows Stayning.
Arthur Barham Pastor of Helens.
John Stern of Andrews Wardrobe.
Joseph Thompson Pastor of Olaves Silver-street.
Stephen Watkins Minister of the Gospel at Saviours Southwark.
Iohn Crodacott Minister of the Gospel at Saviours Southwark.