Good and Necessary Consequence
How does Scripture warrant doctrines it does not explicitly state?
Settled clearly
Background
Reformed theology had always claimed sufficiency for Scripture — *sola scriptura* — but the polemic against the Socinians (who rejected the Trinity on the ground that the term *Trinitas* is not in Scripture) and against the Roman appeal to unwritten tradition required a more articulated answer. How could Reformed divines ground the homoousion, paedobaptism, the Sabbath's transfer to the Lord's Day, and the bi-covenantal structure of redemption, none of which are stated in so many words? The Polish Socinians (Crellius, Schlichting) had argued that whatever was not in the *very letter* of Scripture was not binding. The Reformed needed a doctrine of warranted inference.
The Assembly’s handling
Anthony Tuckney's drafting committee produced the phrase that became WCF I.6: doctrines binding on conscience are those 'expressly set down in Scripture, *or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture*.' The phrase walked a fine line — broad enough to ground Trinitarian and confessional deduction, narrow enough to exclude tradition and mere reason — and was defended on the floor by Tuckney, Cheynell (who wielded it against the Socinians), and Reynolds. No significant voice opposed it; the Assembly's anti-Socinian and anti-Roman consensus held.
Parties
The "good and necessary consequence" drafters
Scripture is sufficient not only in what it expressly states but also in what may be drawn from it by good and necessary consequence — the deductive warrant that grounds the Trinity, paedobaptism, the Lord's Day, and the confessional system as a whole.
- Anthony Tuckney (1599–1670)
- Francis Cheynell (1608–1665)
- Edward Reynolds (1599–1676)
- Cornelius Burgess (1589–1665)
The Socinian alternative (rejected, not present)
Only what is expressly stated in Scripture binds the conscience; deduced doctrines are human inferences and not warrants for confessional subscription. Crellius and the Polish Socinians pressed this against Trinitarian creeds.
Confessional language
WCF I.6: 'The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.'
Ontology placement
This crux bears on the following attribute of the Westminster ontology. The Westminster baseline value is marked WCF.
I · Scripture · Sufficiency
Legacy
The clause has been the bedrock of Reformed systematic theology ever since. It is invoked in every subsequent confessional controversy that turns on whether a doctrine binds — the Marrow controversy (1717-22), the New Side / Old Side disputes, the 1903 PCUSA revisions over the decree, and twentieth-century debates over inerrancy. Twentieth-century theonomists and general-equity theorists have stretched the clause in various directions; the OPC and PCA confessional standards retain Westminster's exact phrasing.