In the previous article, we considered the Scots Confession’s (SC) influence as it pertains to the development of Scottish theology proper: first by considering what the authors of the Confession were not setting out to accomplish, then by considering what they were setting out to accomplish, and then by examining a number of the confession’s particular theological loci.

In today’s article, we will examine how the SC serves as a segue to the eventual adoption of its successor, the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), a reasonable barometer of Scottish theology. 

The Confession as a Natural Segue to Westminster

Though initially meant to bring about a revision of the theological standards of the Church of England, ultimately, the end product of the Westminster Assembly served to perpetuate what has become distinctly Scottish and Presbyterian theology.¹ In viewing the SC as a critical influence in what is known to us as “Scottish theology,” we must view Westminster likewise. Thus, we would be remiss if we did not consider the organic link between the SC and the WCF.

Indeed, regarding its seminal importance, Hazlett notes:

The historical importance of the Scots Confession lies in its formative and normative influence for broadly Reformed or Protestant theology in Scotland. It provided the launching pad in national vernacular idiom for basic Reformation beliefs that became dominant and endured, at least formally. Its significance is such that one could venture to place it among the 100 objects that have helped shape Scottish history.²

There was a spirit of ecumenical humility surrounding the composition and use of the SC. Henderson notes that its authors never claimed it to be infallible or to be the finality of confessional expression for the Reformed Church in Scotland. Neither did they think it to be a superior document against which all of the Reformed confessions fall miserably short.³Rather, we find among the leaders of the Scottish Kirk a willingness to alter anything and conform with what could be biblically proven, as well as a warm embrace and use of other European Protestant confessions.⁴

So, when 1647 came around, and the production of the new WCF along with it, no difficulty was experienced in accepting a new confession so long as its teachings and theology could be shown to be in harmony with the SC, and more importantly, with the Word of God. As Henderson notes, “Confessions were recognized to be human products; and, while one might and did criticize those of others, one remained deliberately and gladly in communion with them, always under the supreme test of the Word.”⁵

One can get the sense of both the ingrained nature of the SC on the psyche of the Scottish church as well as the sense of mutual dependence between the SC and the WCF when one considers actions taken post-Restoration. Henderson says,

After the restoration, the Rescissory Act deprived the Westminster Confession of its still comparatively fresh legal status in Scotland, and by implication restored the Scots Confession, so that the latter is mentioned by Bishop Gilbert Burnet as” the only Confession of Faith that had the sanction of law.” The Episcopalian author of The Case of the present afflicted Clergy (1690) states that “the Confession of Faith made by Mr Knox and ratified in Parliament by King James VI and renewed again in the Test Act by King Charles II, this, together with the Westminster Confession . . . , are owned, next to the Word of God, by both parties as the standard of the doctrine of our Church.”⁶

We must also note the difference in tone between the SC and the WCF: one seemingly hurried, impassioned, and slightly less precise; the latter being calm, measured, and careful. McGowan notes:

It is . . . important to remember that the Scots Confession was put together very quickly in a time of turbulent political activity and in an era of the Church’s life when the important thing was to define itself as a Reformed Church leaving the intricacies of theology to be worked out at a later period. Some writers go so far as to say that its lack of theological finesse is one of the Scots Confession’s greatest strengths.⁷

Along those same lines, Henderson notes that “the Scots Confession is neither so carefully complete nor so rigidly systematic as the Westminster Confession. It was produced by men who were worried, not so much by the niceties of theological controversy, as by practical problems of the Christian life, worship, government, and discipline.”⁸ Nevertheless, he is convinced that the two confessions are in theological agreement: “Nothing new or strange in the sphere of doctrine was brought from Westminster.”⁹

More precise and detailed than the SC, the WCF was still undoubtedly in the same theological vein, poring scrupulously over the details of theological loci such as election, predestination, the imputation of sin from Adam, the imputation of righteousness from Christ to the believer, the extent of the atonement, the condition of the reprobate, and so forth.¹⁰

It is sometimes alleged that the WCF shows a departure from the tenor of the SC due to its more robust (some might say trenchant) emphasis on the doctrine of election. A bit of context, however, will allay these charges. As McGowan identifies, “The doctrines of the great Creeds and Confessions of the Church were only formulated when incorrect statements were made and these had to be corrected.”¹¹

What gave rise to a stronger, more precise articulation of the doctrine of election between 1560 and 1647 was the rise of Arminianism. When the Westminster Assembly met, it was inevitable that the doctrine of election would be at the forefront of their discussions and that it would warrant a clearer, more explicit statement than had been penned previously. A number of the Westminster Divines had been personally involved in the struggle against Arminianism and, thus, were personally invested in seeing this aberrant teaching thwarted. “In other words, the doctrine of election as agreed at Westminster was not contrary to what was agreed at Edinburgh in 1560. It is simply that the doctrine had to be spelled out and clarified in response to the challenge of Arminianism.”¹²

Other confessions of the era further demonstrate that there was no sudden change in the doctrine of election between Edinburgh and Westminster.¹³ Rather, each confession was contextualized and determined to answer the unique theological challenges of its era with appropriate emphasis. Indeed, each Reformed confession of the era takes the same position on the issue.¹⁴

Thus, given this short litany of evidence, we can reasonably argue that the theology of the WCF is a natural development from the theology of the SC and that any apparent changes are simply making explicit what is already implicit.¹⁵

Conclusion

In summation, we have seen from the events leading up to the penning of the SC, from the evidences of the authors’ intentions, as well as from its emphases in doctrine that the confession profoundly shaped the collective mind of the Scottish Kirk—not so much that it offered any novel theological developments, but rather that it gave expression to convictions which were already held by the reforming leaders.

We have also seen the organic theological connection between the SC and the WCF such that the former was a natural segue to the latter when the time came for further theological loci to be developed and clarified. Indeed, given the eventual non-adoption of the WCF by the Church of England and, conversely, its official adoption by the Church of Scotland, it is fair to say that inasmuch as Westminster influenced later Scottish and Presbyterian theology, so too did the Scots Confession as it lies in seed form within the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Therefore, it is fair to conclude that the Scots Confession is one of the most determinative articles in terms of giving shape to the Scottish national church and its legacy; wherever one may find Scottish theology, one may detect the influence of the Scots Confession of 1560.

I hope that our readers might come away with a new (or renewed) interest in this particular expression of our Reformed and confessional heritage and see the benefit of an ongoing study of many of these confessional artifacts that are not often part of the regular diet in our churches and denominations. My hope is that this two-part series might plant a fresh appreciation for the Scots Confession in our little corner of the Lord’s vineyard.

Why should an older (some might say abrogated or surpassed) confessional expression like the Scots Confession be worth our time and attention today? Let me simply suggest that the Scots Confession of 1560 is a rich resource for contemporary readers, offering a vivid glimpse into an earlier generation of Reformed, confessional thought. Its distinctiveness lies in its clarity and forthrightness, reflecting the zeal and urgency of the Scottish Reformers in the heat of ecclesiastical transformation. Unlike later, more polished confessions such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Scots Confession has an earthy and direct quality that speaks to its historical moment—a church in transition, grappling with defining its identity; a new Protestant and national church for Scotland, coming into existence for the first time.

Alongside other early Reformed confessions, such as the First (1536) and Second Helvetic Confessions (1562/1566), the Genevan Confession (1536), or the Gallic Confession (1559), the Scots Confession enables modern readers to appreciate the historicity, breadth, and depth of the Reformed tradition. These documents allow us to trace out our roots, seeing not only the unique responses to the theological and cultural challenges of their respective eras but also the remarkable continuity across time as they articulate the “faith once for all delivered to the saints.” By studying these early confessions, we gain a fuller understanding of how the Reformed tradition developed and matured, offering both an appreciation of its foundational principles and an enduring guide for faith and practice today.

A Side-by-Side Comparison of the Structures of the Scots Confession and the Westminster Confession

Scots Confession of 1560 1. God 2. The Creation of Man 3. Original Sin 4. The Revelation of the Promise 5. The Continuance, Increase, and Preservation of the Kirk 6. The Incarnation of Jesus Christ 7. Why the Mediator Had to Be True God and True Man 8. Election 9. Christ’s Death, Passion, and Burial 10. The Resurrection 11. The Ascension 12. Faith in the Holy Ghost 13. The Cause of Good Works 14. The Works Which Are Counted Good Before God 15. The Perfection of the Law and The Imperfection of Man 16. The Kirk 17. The Immortality of Souls 18. The Notes by Which the True Kirk Shall Be Determined From The False, and Who Shall Be Judge of Doctrine 19. The Authority of the Scriptures 20. General Councils, Their Power, Authority, and the Cause of Their Summoning 21. The Sacraments 22. The Right Administration of the Sacraments 23. To Whom Sacraments Appertain 24. The Civil Magistrate 25. The Gifts Freely Given to the Kirk

Westminster Confession of Faith 1. Of the Holy Scripture 2. Of God, and of the Holy Trinity 3. Of God’s Eternal Decree 4. Of Creation 5. Of Providence 6. Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof 7. Of God’s Covenant with Man 8. Of Christ the Mediator 9. Of Free Will 10. Of Effectual Calling 11. Of Justification 12. Of Adoption 13. Of Sanctification 14. Of Saving Faith 15. Of Repentance unto Life 16. Of Good Works 17. Of the Perseverance of the Saints 18. Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation 19. Of the Law of God 20. Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience 21. Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day 22. Of Lawful Oaths and Vows 23. Of the Civil Magistrate 24. Of Marriage and Divorce 25. Of the Church 26. Of the Communion of Saints 27. Of the Sacraments 28. Of Baptism 29. Of the Lord’s Supper 30. Of Church Censures 31. Of Synods and Councils 32. Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead 33. Of the Last Judgement

Notes

1. Ian Hazlett, “A New Version of the Scots Confession, 1560 [Introduction],” Theology in Scotland 17, no. 2 (January 1, 2010):33, 35.
2. Hazlett, “A New Version of the Scots Confession, 1560 [Introduction],” 35.
3. Indeed, the Scottish Church made great use of the Heidelberg Catechism amongst students in the universities; Scottish ministers who ministered in French churches used the Gallic Confession; Knox’s Book of Common Order included at the beginning the Confession of Faith used in the English Congregation at Geneva. For the Scottish church, the confession was meant to further the cause of understanding the Scriptures. See G. D. Henderson ed., The Scots Confession of 1560 (Edinburgh: St Andrew Press, 1960), 4–5.
4. Henderson, The Scots Confession, 4–5.
5. Henderson, 6.
6. Henderson, 12.
7. Andrew McGowan, “Edinburgh to Westminster,” in J. Ligon Duncan ed., The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, Vol. 1 (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2003), 195.
8. Henderson, The Scots Confession, 10.
9. Henderson, 10. While acknowledging a certain debt to Calvin in the topical arrangement/order of the chapters, it is not hard to see how the latter confession naturally flowed out of the former. See Appendix A.
10. Henderson, The Scots Confession, 10.
11. McGowan, “Edinburgh to Westminster,” 205.
12. McGowan, 206.
13. Such as the Belgic Confession of 1561, the Irish Articles of 1615, etc.
14. McGowan, “Edinburgh to Westminster,” 207–08.
15. McGowan, 212.

©Sean Morris All Rights Reserved.

You can find the whole series here. 

---

RESOURCES

• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

---

Post authored by:

• Sean Morris

  

  Sean was educated at Grove City College, Reformed Theological Seminary (Jackson, MS), and the University of Glasgow (Scotland). He is an ordained teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America, and serves as a minister at the Covenant Presbyterian Church in Oak Ridge, TN. He also serves as the Academic Dean of the Blue Ridge Institute for Theological Education. He is currently pursuing his PhD in Historical Theology at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Sean lives in Oak Ridge with his wife, Sarah, along with their children and useless beagle.

  More by Sean Morris ›