Chapter One
The Life of
John Davenant
Before casting the microscope over the teachings
of Davenant, it is necessary to delve in some detail into his background.
Clearly, when he enunciated his views upon the atonement, he did not speak or
write in a vacuum. Therefore, the primary purpose in examining Davenant’s life
is to become acquainted with those issues which influenced his writings. In
this regard, it is of particular importance to examine Davenant’s participation
at the Synod of Dort because it was there that his views on the atonement
initially came to prominence.
Who then was John Davenant? Davenant was born on
20 May 1572 in London. His father was an influential merchant in that city. In
1587, at the age of 15, he was admitted to Queen’s College at Cambridge where
he obtained his degree of Master of Arts in 1594. He studied Classical and
Biblical languages, Logic, Ethics, Rhetoric, History, Science, Law, Politics,
and Divinity. In 1601, he secured his Bachelor of Divinity and proceeded to
obtain his Doctorate in Divinity in 1609.
Davenant had a rapid rise to prominence within the
Church of England, so that by 1614 he had become an influential churchman. He
was appointed Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge in 1614.
His principal claim to fame came in 1618, when he,
together with four other theologians, was selected by King James I to represent
the Church of England at the Synod of Dort. Because of England’s close
political ties with Holland and the desire of the Dutch to resolve certain
controversial doctrinal issues, numerous theologians from throughout Europe
were invited to attend that synod.
The background to the Synod of Dort is important
to our considerations because it highlights one significant body of prevailing
theological thought on the atonement. That view became the focus of considerable
and at times acrimonious discussion during the course of the synod. Let us
examine briefly the background to the Synod.
The states of Holland had no sooner established
their freedom from the yoke of Spain than they were embroiled in theological
contentions, which soon became intermingled with political machinations. After
the assassination of William the Silent in 1584, William’s son Maurice and Jan
van Oldenbarneveldt provided leadership in Holland. However, as time went on,
the two leaders drifted into disagreement. Against this background, there were
difficulties also within the church, and those difficulties were exacerbated
because Maurice and van Oldenbarneveldt supported the opposing sides. It is not
necessary for our purposes to go into specific detail of all the issues which
troubled the church in Holland. However, it is worthwhile noting that one of
the issues which caused consternation related to the order of the divine
decrees.
The doctrine of the divine decrees had been left
by the Belgic Confession in the
undefined simplicity of the Scriptures. However, in the period immediately
following the Reformation, attempts were made to identify more authoritatively
the order of the decrees, some favoring the supralapsarian position and others
the sublapsarian position.
These disputes were relatively insignificant until
1591, when James Arminius, professor of Divinity at the University of Leyden,
was called upon to give his judgment on certain statements concerning
predestination made by the Dutch humanist and evangelical, Dirck Coornheert.
The request to Arminius had arisen because
Coornheert, in a somewhat unguarded way, had advanced certain opinions
concerning predestination. The ministers of Delft disagreed with the views
expressed by Coornheert and responded to him in writing. In doing so, they
advocated the generally received sublapsarian position. Not surprisingly, their
response caused offense to those who maintained the supralapsarian view.
Therefore Arminius, as the most talented divine of the day, was requested to
give his opinion on the matter. He was exhorted by both sides to support their
respective positions. On the one hand his friend Martin Lydius solicited him to
vindicate the supralapsarian views of his former tutor, Theodore Beza, while on
the other hand, he was exhorted by the Synod of Amsterdam to adopt the
sublapsarian position.10
Placed in this somewhat invidious position,
Arminius embarked upon an examination of the whole question of the decrees of
God. His examination of the issues induced him to change his views and directed
his thinking and beliefs into the teachings which now bear his name. Because of
his shift in thinking, Arminius never completed his report on the disputed
matters.
However, his newly held convictions led to
disputations within the Reformed Church and seriously threatened its peace.11
Matters were further inflamed in 1605, when the
Classis of Dort transmitted a grievance, primarily aimed at Arminius, to the
University of Leyden. It read:
Inasmuch as rumours are
heard that certain controversies have arisen in the Church and University of
Leyden, concerning the doctrines of the Reformed churches, this Class has
judged it necessary that the synod should deliberate respecting the safest and
most speedy method of settling those controversies; that all the schisms and
causes of offence which spring out of them may be seasonably removed, and the
union of the Reformed churches preserved inviolate against the calumnies of
adversaries.12
The
grievance offended the sensibilities of moderate men on both sides of the
debate and resulted in the professors responding,
that they wished the Dort
class had, in this affair, acted with greater discretion, and in a more orderly
manner; that, in their opinion, there were more disputes among the students
than was agreeable to them as the Professors; but, that among themselves, the
Professors of Theology, no difference existed that could be considered as
affecting, in the least, the fundamentals of doctrine; and that they would
endeavour to diminish the disputes among the Students.13
This was not exactly the response that the Classis
of Dort desired. The result of these communiqués was to bring the matter before
the public, and thereby a flame of controversy spread throughout the United
Provinces. The result of the dispute was that it split the Reformed Church. In
1609, in the midst of this turmoil, Arminius died. After his death, his
followers abandoned many of the views which he had held in common with Calvin,
particularly on the issue of justification by faith. They became universally
lax, both in their opinions and in the way in which they lived.
Attempts were made by both sides in the dispute to
gain the support of their political masters. Arminius’ followers presented a
remonstrance to the States-General of the Dutch Provinces in 1610 from which
they obtained the name of Remonstrants. Their opponents countered this maneuver
by presenting a counter remonstrance, thereby earning a place in history under
the name of Contra-Remonstrants.
There were calls by the Contra-Remonstrants for a
national synod to resolve the dispute, but this was not favored by van
Oldenbarneveldt.14 Therefore, the provinces refused this demand.
However, shortly thereafter, the political landscape in Holland was
dramatically altered with the demise of van Oldenbarneveldt. The theological
dispute was threatening to get totally out of hand, even to the extent of
threatening the stability of the country. The seriousness of the situation
prompted four out of the seven United provinces to agree in 1618 to the holding
of a national synod. That synod was appointed to be held at Dort.
As noted above, invitations to attend the synod
were extended to various countries in Europe. Letters were sent to the French
Huguenots and to the different Protestant States of Germany and Switzerland,
requesting them to send deputies to assist the deliberations.
Because of the close Anglo-Dutch political ties
which existed at that time, it was only natural that English views should also
be sought. England under Elisabeth had played a significant role in securing
independence for the seven northern provinces from Spain, and any threat to
their continued survival remained a matter of importance to England.15
James I, partly for political motives and partly
because of his love of theological controversies, complied with this request
and selected five well credentialed theologians to attend the synod, viz., Davenant, Dr. George Carleton,
Bishop of Landaff, Dr. John Hall, Dean of Worcester, Dr. Samuel Ward, Master of
Sydney Sussex College, and Walter Balcanqual, a presbyter of the Church of
Scotland. Hall subsequently fell ill and was forced to return to England, and
his place was taken by Dr. Thomas Goad, Precentor of St. Paul’s and Chaplain to
the Primate, Abbot.
Prior to attending the synod, the English
delegation was summoned before James I and Archbishop Abbot, the Archbishop of
Canterbury, to receive specific instructions as to the approach which it was to
adopt to the issues which would arise at the synod.
The instructions included inter alia the following:
You shall, in all points
to be debated and disputed, resolve among yourselves before-hand, what is the
true state of the question, and jointly and uniformly agree thereupon.
If, in debating the cause
by the learned men there, anything be emergent, whereof you thought not before,
you shall meet and consult thereupon again, and so resolve among yourselves
jointly, what is fit to be maintained. And this to be done agreeable to the
Scriptures, and the doctrine of the Church of England.
That if there be main
opposition between any, who are over-much addicted to their opinions, your
endeavour shall be, that certain Propositions be moderately laid down, which
may tend to the mitigation of heat on both sides.16
In addition to these instructions, the divines
were also instructed by both the king and the archbishop to oppose strongly any
attempt to meddle with the doctrine of the Church of England and furthermore to
be preemptory in introducing into the determinations of the synod, the
universality of Christ’s redemptive work.17
-----------------
FOOTNOTES:
10. John Davenant, An Exposition to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, translated from the original Latin by Josiah Allport, (James Family Christian Publishers, Lynchburg, Virginia, 1979), p. xii.
11. The views adopted by Arminius have
subsequently been titled the Five Points of Arminianism, and in summary are as
follows:
1. God from all eternity
has determined to bestow salvation on those whom He foresaw would persevere to
the end in their Christian faith, and to inflict everlasting punishment on
those whom He foresaw would continue in their unbelief, and to resist His
divine succors.
2. Jesus Christ, by His
death and sufferings, has made an atonement for the sins of all mankind, and of
every individual; but none except those who believe in Him can be partakers of
this divine benefit.
3. True faith cannot
proceed from the exercise of our natural faculties and powers, nor from the
force and operation of free-will; since man, in consequence of his natural
corruption, is incapable of doing or thinking any good thing; and therefore
regeneration, or renewal by the operation of the Holy Ghost which is the gift
of God through Jesus Christ, is necessary to man’s conversion and salvation.
4. This divine grace or
energy of the Holy Ghost, which heals the disorders of a corrupt nature,
begins, advances, and brings to perfection every thing which can be called good
in man; consequently, all good works are to be attributed to God alone, and to
the operation of His grace; nevertheless, this grace does not constrain any man
to act against his inclination, but may be resisted, and rendered ineffectual,
by the perverse will of the impenitent sinner.
5. They who are united to
Christ by faith are thereby furnished with abundant succors to enable them to
triumph over the seduction of Satan and the allurements of sin and temptation;
but such may fall from their faith, and finally forfeit this state of grace.
12.
Davenant, Op. cit., p. xiii.
13. Ibid.
14. The New
International Dictionary of the Christian Church, J. D. Douglas ed.
(Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1978), p. 70.
15. Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1991), p. 88.
16. Morris Fuller, The Life, Letters & Writings of John Davenant D.D (Methuen
& Co., London, 1897), pp. 75, 76.
17. Fuller, Op.
cit., p. 78. The veracity of this instruction as it pertains to the
universality of Christ’s redemptive work has been challenged. Cf. Godfrey, Op. cit., p. 168n.
No comments:
Post a Comment