Prof. Herman
C. Hanko
[Source: Protestant
Reformed Theological Journal, November, 1984]
The error of Amyrauldianism was not
confined to France, but soon spread to many parts of the continent and came
also into Britain. It is not surprising that this should happen, for John
Cameron, the teacher of Amyraut, ended his career as Principal in Glasgow
College where John Davenant (l576-1641) was his student.
While it is not our purpose to enter
into detail concerning the views of Davenant, whom many consider to be one of
Britain’s outstanding theologians, nevertheless, it is of interest to note that
he was one of the delegates from Great Britain to the famous Synod of Dort.
Davenant attempted to find a middle
road between outright Arminianism and the supralapsarianism which some in
England favored. He found in the theology of Saumur such a road and defended
the Amyrauldian views of hypothetical universalism, a general atonement in the
sense of intention as well as sufficiency, a common blessing of the cross, and
a conditional salvation. All these views stood in close connection with the
theology of the well-meant offer of salvation to all.
It is clear that Davenant defended a
view that was contrary to the views of Calvin and was an attempt to alter the
system of Calvinism as it was maintained by many theologians within Britain.
In an interesting book entitled, Calvin and the Calvinists, by Paul Helm,
the author speaks of these views of Davenant.27 Helm writes,
According
to Kendall, Calvin held that the scope of the death of Christ is different from
that of His intercession. He died for all, but intercedes only for the elect.
The Amyrauldians appeared to have made no such distinction, arguing that the
work of Christ as a totality was for
all, and that this total saving work was applied by the Holy Spirit to the elect
alone. According to Kendall’s Calvin only part of the provision of salvation in
Christ was universal in its intent, namely, his death, while his intercession
was particular. It is this that makes his interpretation of Calvin unique …
In
his Dissertations on the Death of Christ,
a book written from a broadly Amyrauldian position, John Davenant considers the
following objection to his own view: “If the death of Christ is to be
considered as a remedy or ransom applicable to every man, from the ordination
of God, then also the resurrection, intercession and mediation of Christ will
have respect to all men in the same manner. But Christ was not raised up for
all men, does not intercede for all, is not the mediator of all: Therefore,
neither is his death to be extended to all.” It might be expected that Davenant
would reply to such an objection by insisting that the scope of Christ’s
intercession is narrower than that of his death, and by backing this up with an
appeal to the illustrious precedent of John Calvin. But Davenant replies. “For
as we can truly announce to every man that his sins are expiable by the death
of Christ according to the ordination of God and will be expiated, if only he
should believe in Christ; so also we can truly declare, that the same Christ
was raised again, that he might justify him through faith, and was exalted at
the right hand of God, that, by his mediation and merits, he might preserve him
through faith in the favor of God, and at length might lead him to glory.
Therefore we do not put asunder those things which God hath joined together;
but we teach that the death, resurrection, and intercession of Christ are
joined together in indissoluble union …
It is clear from this quote that
Davenant wanted both an atonement that was universal in some respects and an
intercession of Christ that was of the same extent as the atonement.
The following quote expresses the same
view of Davenant:
In
England the notion of a universal desire in God for the salvation of all men
was also the root principle of the Davenant School at the beginning of the
seventeenth century. This school taught that there is in the redemption
purchased by Christ, an absolute intention for the elect and a conditional
intention for the reprobate in case they do not believe.28
A number of men were influenced by
Davenant’s thinking and this school of thought was represented at the
Westminster Assembly by such men as Arrowsmith, Sprigge, Pritte, Carlyle,
Burroughs, Strong, Seaman and Calumy. These men in general agreed to an
absolute decree of predestination for the elect, but a general and conditional
decree of all men. They defended a universal atonement in the sense of intention
as well as sufficiency, i.e., that the atonement was intended for all as well as sufficient for all. Flowing from the
cross were general blessings that came to all, and a certain common grace that
was the possession of all who came under the preaching. And, in connection with
these views, they defended the idea also of an offer of the gospel to all in
which God expressed His intention and willingness to save all.
In his Introduction to the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly, A.
F. Mitchell writes:
The
same care was taken to avoid the insertion of anything which could be regarded
as indicating a preference for supralapsarianism; and for this purpose, the
words, “to bring this to pass, God ordained to permit man to fall,” were
changed into “they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by
Christ,” etc. Did these divines mean to follow an opposite policy in regard to
the point on which Calumy, Arrowsmith, Vines, Seaman, and other disciples of
Davenant, or according to Baillie of Amyraut, differed from the more exact
Calvinists? After repeated perusal of their debate, I cannot take upon myself
certainly to affirm that they did, though I admit that this matter is not so
clear as the others above referred to. No notes of the debate in its latest stage
are given nor is a vote of dissent respecting it found in these Minutes.
Calumy, who spoke repeatedly in the debate on the Extent of Redemption, avowed
that he held, in the same sense as the English divines at the Synod of Dort, “that
Christ by his death did pay a price for all, with absolute intention for the
elect, with conditional intention for the reprobate in case they do believe;
that all men should be salvabiles non
obstante lapsu Adami ...; that Jesus Christ did not only die sufficiently
for all, but God did intend, in giving of Christ, and Christ in giving himself
did intend, to put all men in a state of salvation in case they do believe.”
Seaman, Vines, Marshall, and Harris in part at least, agreed with him. And
though I cannot find that Dr. Arrowsmith took part in this debate, yet he was
attending the Assembly, was a member of the Committee on the Confession, and in his writings has
repeatedly expressed his leaning toward the same opinion.29
That these men held to these views is,
as Rev. Mitchell points out, clear from the record of the Minutes.30
In this same connection, Philip Schaff
writes in his Creeds of Christendom:
Several
prominent members, as Calumy, Arrowsmith, Vines, Seaman, who took part in the
preparation of the doctrinal standards sympathized with the hypothetical
universalism of the Saumur school (Cameron and Amyrauld) and with the moderate
position of Davenant and the English delegates to the Synod of Dort. They
expressed this sympathy on the floor of the Assembly, as well as on other
occasions. They believed in a special effective election and final perseverance
of the elect (as necessary means to a certain end), but they held at the same
time that God sincerely intends to save all men that Christ intended to die,
and actually died, for all men, and that the difference is not in the intention
and offer on the part of God, but in the acceptance and appropriation on the
part of men.31
The question arises whether these views
of the Davenant school were incorporated into the Westminster Confession. The answer to this question is that,
although able theologians defended these views on the Assembly, they were
nevertheless not included in the formulation of the Confession as it was finally adopted. The Assembly spoke, in
connection with predestination, of a sovereign election without conditions and
of a sovereign reprobation in which, “The rest of mankind God was pleased,
according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or
withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His
creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin,
to the praise of His glorious justice.”32 No mention is made here of
the hypothetical universalism of the Saumur school, but sovereign and double
predestination is emphatically set forth.
In connection with the redemption that
Christ accomplished on the cross, the Assembly was equally strong: “The Lord
Jesus … purchased … an everlasting inheritance … for all those whom the Father
had given unto him” (VIII, 5). “Although the work of redemption was not
actually wrought by Christ till after His incarnation, yet the virtue,
efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated unto the elect …” (VIII, 6). “To
all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption he doth certainly and
effectually apply and communicate the same …” (VIII, 1).
But these references do not solve our
entire problem, for the question arises whether or not the idea of the free and
well-meant offer was incorporated into the Westminster Creed. And this, in
turn, brings up another question that is much debated: Did the Westminster
Divines specifically and categorically exclude the Amyrauldian view as set
forth by the Davenant school?
In connection with the first question,
Westminster does specifically refer to the offer in VII, 3, strikingly enough
in connection with the doctrine of the covenant rather than, where one would
expect it, in connection with the calling. The article reads:
Man
by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord
was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he
freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of
them faith in him that they might be saved, and promising to give unto all
those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and
able to believe.
While it is true that the term “offer”
is used here, (the Latin reads: in quo
peccatoribus offert gratuito vitam ac salutem per Jesum Christum), there
are several considerations which lead us to conclude that the idea of the offer
as used by the school of Amyraut and as promoted by the Davenant men was not
intended by the Westminster divines. In the first place, the theology of the offer—a
double will of God, a universal intention in the atonement, a conditional
salvation—was not incorporated in the creed. In the second place, the
word “offer” is not found in the
chapter on effectual calling where one would expect it, but in the section on
the covenant, which leads one to think that it was intended by the Westminster
fathers, not as a flat statement concerning the offer, but in the sense of
Christ presented or set forth in the gospel. In the third
place, even in the article where the word is used, it is made synonymous with
the command to believe (“freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus
Christ, requiring of them faith in him …”). And, in this same article, the
promise of salvation is said to be to the elect alone (“… and promising to give
unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them
willing and able to believe”).
Nevertheless, the views represented on
the Assembly by the Davenant men were not specifically repudiated. Some have
argued from this that the Assembly deliberately worded the Confession in such a way that the Davenant men were given latitude
for their views and were thus enabled also to sign the Confession in the firm conviction that their views were not
specifically condemned.
Schaff deals with this question at some
length and concludes:33
This
looks like a compromise between conditional universalism taught in the first
clause, and particular election taught in the second. This is in substance the
theory of the school of Saumur, which was first broached by the Scotch divine
Cameron (d. 1626), and more fully developed by his pupil Amyraut, between A.D.
1630 and 1650, and which was afterwards condemned in the Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675).34
In an interesting footnote, Schaff
connects all this with the idea of the offer, an idea that he espouses:
The
ablest modern defendants of a limited atonement, Drs. Cunningham and Hodge, are
as emphatic on the absolute sufficiency
as Reynolds. Their arguments are chiefly logical; but logic depends on the premises,
and is a two-edged sword which may be turned against them as well. For if the
atonement be limited in design it
must be limited in the offer or if
unlimited in the offer, the offer made to the non-elect must be insincere and hypocritical, which is inconsistent with the truthfulness and
goodness of God. Every Calvinist (sic) preaches on the assumption that the
offer of salvation is truly and sincerely extended to all his hearers, and that it is their own fault if they are not
saved.35
Mitchell takes the same position in a
quote we used earlier.
But
it is remarkable that, though the assembly met after the Synod of Dort, and had
for the president one whose opinions on these mysterious subjects were almost
as pronounced as those of Gomarus himself, it fell back not on the decrees of
that Synod, but on the Articles of the Irish Church, which had been drawn up
before the Synod of Dort was summoned, for the controversies its decrees
occasioned had waxed so fierce. The debaters of the Assembly clearly show that
its members did not wish to determine several particulars decided by the Synod
of Dort, far less to determine them more rigidly than it had done … Did these
divines mean to follow an opposite policy in regard to the point on which
Calumy, Arrowsmith, Vines, Seaman, and other disciples of Davenant, or
according to Baillie of Amyraut, different from the more exact Calvinists?
After repeated perusal of their debate, I cannot take upon myself certainly to
affirm that they did, though I admit that this matter is not so clear as the
others above referred to.36
This conclusion is, I think, correct.
While a certain defense of Amyrauldianism was represented at Westminster, it
was not incorporated into the Confession,
but it was also not specifically and explicitly excluded.37
There are probably several reasons for
this. In the first place, the Westminster Confession has no negative
sections in it that condemns specific errors, as, e.g., the Canons have. In the second place, this
in turn was probably due to several factors. On the one hand, the Confession was not born out of the fire
of persecution (as was the Canons of Dort).
This gives, in fact, to the Confession,
a certain objective and somewhat abstract character, far removed from the warm
personal confession of the Belgic
Confession, which so often begins its articles with the words, “We believe …”
and from the strong pastoral concern of the Canons
of Dort which speaks so warmly (in all its chapters) of the personal
assurance of the child of God. On the other hand, within the context of the
times, the Parliament, which authorized the Assembly, and the Assembly itself
were interested in establishing the doctrines of Westminster as the religion of
the State, intending it to replace Anglicanism. And this intention necessarily
involved making the Confession
inclusive rather than exclusive, for it was to be the Confession of the realm.
We can only conclude therefore, that
the Westminster Confession is weak at
certain key points. It is weak in failing to exclude certain views promoted by
the Davenant men, a failure which enabled these men to sign the Confession. It is weak in failing to
define clearly its idea of the offer—a subject which was indeed an issue
among those who defended some form of Amyrauldianism.
Yet it must not be forgotten that the
positive statements of the Confession
set forth the truth of Scripture on all these points and do not, by any stretch
of the imagination, incorporate the views of the free offer in its formulation.
Any form of Arminianism, also such as represented by Amyraut and Davenant, and
the whole notion of the free offer was excluded from the formulation of this
great Assembly.
We conclude this section with a quote
that shows the difference clearly between Arminianism and Calvinism on the
question of the offer.
The
Arminians, believing in universal grace in the sense of God’s love to all men,
that is, omnibus et singulis or His
design and purpose to save all men conditionally, consistently follow out these
views by asserting a universal proclamation
to men of God’s purpose of mercy—a universal vocation, or offer and
invitation to men to receive pardon and salvation,—accompanied
by a universal sufficient grace,—gracious assistance actually and
universally bestowed, sufficient to enable all men, if they chose, to attain to
the full possession of spiritual blessings, and ultimately to salvation.
Calvinists, while they admit that pardon and salvation are offered
indiscriminately to all to whom the gospel is preached, and that all who can be
reached should be invited and urged to come to Christ and embrace Him deny that this flows from, or indicates, any
design or purpose on God's part to save all men (the italics of this clause
are ours); and without pretending to understand or unfold all the objects or
ends of this arrangement, or to assert that it has no other object or end
whatever, regard it as mainly
designed to effect the result of calling out and saving God’s chosen people;
and they deny that grace, or gracious divine assistance, sufficient to produce
faith and regeneration, is given to all men.38
----------------
FOOTNOTES:
27. This book was published in 1982 by
The Banner of Truth Trust. It was written against Dr. R. T. Kendall, who in his
book, Calvin and English Calvinism to
1649, defends the proposition that Puritan theology “departed significantly
from, and even opposed, the theology of John Calvin.” This, according to
Kendall, was especially true of Calvin’s doctrine of the atonement.
28. Universalism and the Reformed Churches, A Defense of Calvin’s Calvinism,
published by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia. This pamphlet is
a detailed refutation of the idea that the free offer of the gospel stands in
the line of historic Calvinism. It shows clearly that the notion of the free
offer is a “modification” of Calvinism and a modification which introduces into
the Calvinistic system a deadly Arminianism.
29. pp. 56-59.
30. Cf. for this material pp. 152-156.
31. Vol. I, p. 770.
32. C.f. III, 7.
33. Op. cit., pp. 769-773.
34. Ibid., 772, 773.
35. Ibid., p. 772.
36. Op. cit., pp. 54, 55.
37. I have dealt with this entire
subject in greater detail in the Protestant
Reformed Theological Journal, Vol. XX, No. 1, in an article entitled, “A
Comparison of the Westminster and Reformed Confessions.”
38. William Cunningham, Historical Theology, The Banner of Truth
Trust, Edinburgh, 1979, Vol. II, pp. 396, 397.
No comments:
Post a Comment