Chapter Two
Proceedings
at the Synod of Dort
The Dutch Arminians did not arrive at Dort until
late November 1618. When they did arrive, their appearance turned into a farce.
They were treated from the outset as the accused, a position which they
rejected.18 Under the leadership of Simon Episcopius, they resorted
to several procedural maneuvers designed to delay the synod in its work. These
tactics were employed, possibly in the hope that time would bring a favorable
change in the political situation. As it was, their tactics prevented any
official judgment being made at Dort until early January 1619, when, because of
their attitude toward the synod, they were dismissed.19 Though the
Remonstrants were no longer present at the synod, their doctrinal views were
extracted from their published writings and dealt with under the five principal
points which characterized their doctrine.
Each body of delegates was required to reduce
their views to writing, so that they could be presented to the synod in a
cogent form. This requirement was also designed to facilitate the collation of
a mutually agreeable statement at the conclusion of the synod.
The first issue which came under the synod’s
purview was predestination. This matter presented no great difficulties, with
general agreement being reached on the unconditional nature of the decrees of
election and reprobation.
The second matter which was discussed was the
redemption purchased by Jesus Christ, and it proved to be not quite so simple
as the issue of predestination.
The Remonstrants, as regards the atonement, rested
their contentions on the sharp distinction that they drew between the
accomplishment of Christ on the cross and the application of that
accomplishment to the lives of men. Their basic notion was that Christ made
salvation possible for all men, but that this salvation was actualized in men
only by their response of faith. In other words, they propounded a conditional
salvation which was dependent upon man for acceptation.
In summary, the position of the Remonstrants was
that:
1. The price of the
redemption which Christ offered to God the Father is not only in itself and by
itself sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race but has also been
paid for all men and for every man, according to the decree, will, and grace of
God the Father; therefore no one is absolutely excluded from participation in
the fruits of Christ’s death by an absolute and antecedent decree of God.
2. Christ has, by the
merit of his death, so reconciled God the Father to the whole human race that
the Father, on account of that merit, without giving up His righteousness and
truth, has been able and has willed to make and confirm a new covenant of grace
with sinners and men liable to damnation.
3. Though Christ has
merited reconciliation with God and remission of sins for all men and for every
man, yet no one, according to the pact of the new and gracious covenant,
becomes a true partaker of the benefits obtained by the death of Christ in any
other way than by faith; nor are sins forgiven to sinning men before they
actually believe in Christ.
4. Only those are obliged
to believe that Christ died for them for whom Christ has died. The reprobates,
however, as they are called, for whom Christ has not died, are not obligated to
such faith, nor can they be justly condemned on account of the contrary refusal
to believe this. In fact, if there should be such reprobates, they would be
obliged to believe that Christ has not died for them.20
All the members of the synod, including Davenant,
agreed that these theses were unacceptable.21 However, the delegates
to the synod found that they could not agree so easily on an acceptable
orthodox reply to the Remonstrant position. Indeed, the discussions of the
Second Article produced tensions and bitterness among the orthodox of the
synod.
This issue also occasioned a divergence of views
among the English delegation. These divisions grew out of the significant
diversity of opinion that existed within the so-called Reformed consensus.
Davenant and Ward took a view of the nature and
extent of Christ’s atonement which was not shared by the other members of the
English contingent.22 On the question of the nature and extent of
the atonement, Davenant and Ward maintained what could probably be called a
middle course between the Reformed and Arminian positions. They held to the
certainty of the salvation of the elect; but they also held that an offer of
pardon was made not only to such as believed and repented, but to all who heard
the gospel. They also held that a sufficient measure of grace to convince the
impenitent, so as to lay their condemnation on themselves, accompanied the
offer of salvation; and they held that the redemption of Christ was universal,
and, consequently, that salvation was attainable by all.23 Davenant
felt so strongly about this issue that he declared that he would sooner cut off
his hand than rescind any word of it.
While the views of Davenant and Ward were opposed
by the other English delegates, they all rejected the distinction drawn by the
Remonstrants between the accomplishment of reconciliation by Christ’s faith and
the application of the benefits of His death. Beyond that fundamental agreement
lay many other differences of thought and expression.
The nature of the disputation within the ranks of
the English delegation is evident from the following report of Balcanqual to
Sir Dudley Carlton. Balcanqual wrote:
the question amongst us is
whether the words of the Scripture, which are likewise the words of our
confession, (“Christ died for the whole human race, even for the sins of the
whole world") are to be understood of all particular men, or only of the
elect who consist of all sorts of men. Dr. Davenant and Dr. Ward are of
Martinius of Breme his mind, that is to be understood of all particular men.
The other three [Balcanqual, George Carleton and Goad] take the other
exposition, which is of the writers of the Reformed Churches and namely of my
late Lord of Salisbury. Both sides think that they are right, and therefore
cannot yield one unto the another with a safe conscience.24
Balcanqual suggested that further discussion of
this matter be postponed until the end of the synod and that, in the interim,
English church leaders be consulted. This was done. However, for reasons which
are not presently important, conflicting advice was received by the English delegates
from James I and Archbishop Abbot. In any event, both advices arrived too late
to assist the English delegation in the formulation of their written submission
or Judicium to the synod regarding
the atonement.
In an attempt to avoid controversy within their
own ranks and to comply with the king’s initial instructions, the English
delegation attempted to omit all controversial references.25 They
formulated a response which took into account the divergent views within their
own ranks. This is evident from the description of the English Judicium given by Balcanqual:
There was read the
judgment of the divines of Great Britain upon the Second Article; they were
briefer than upon the First Article, they left the received distinction of sufficientia and efficacia mortis Christi untouched; as likewise they did not touch
that received restriction of those places which make Christ’s sufferings
general to the world, only ad mundum
Electorum.26
In their final form, the English Judicium comprised six propositions and
three rejections of error, all of which were explained and defended.27
The first two positive statements reflected the attitudes of Carleton,
Balcanqual, and Goad. These emphasized the Reformed position that Christ died
efficaciously for the elect to give them faith and all other gifts necessary
for salvation. The four remaining theses were designed to grant significant
concessions to the consciences of Davenant and Ward. The remaining theses dealt
with the more general love of God toward the whole creation. Avoiding both the
Arminian and purportedly Reformed extremes, these theses proposed an expanded
view of sufficiency. They referred to a general promise and a conditional
covenant. The special intention of God for the elect was supplemented by his general
and sufficient intention for all mankind.28 Compromise had raised
its multifaceted and ugly head!
The understanding of the English submissions, at
least so far as Davenant was concerned, is reflected in the reasons which he
prepared in relation to the Second Article. He wrote:
For the universality of
the promises of the Gospel, which is the Second Article, the Church of England,
doth teach Atric. Relig. 7 de
Predestinatione, That we must receive God’s promises, in such wise, as they
be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture; where our Church doth signify
that the promises of God in the Gospel do appertain to all generally to whom
they are published, and according to this we hold, that the reason why the promises of the Gospel are not effectual to all
to whom they are published, is not through any defect in Christ’s death, as
though he had not truly founded and ratified by his death and passion the
Evangelical Covenant or promise to all; or that this promise pertained not to
all; or, that God did not thereby seriously invite all, to whom this
Evangelical promise is propounded in the Ministry of the word, to repentance,
and faith, and so consequently to the participation of the benefits promised
therein: but the defect is inherent in
man who will not receive that grace, that is truly and seriously
offered on God's part.29 [Emphasis MS]
The stand taken by the English divines led
subsequently to the allegation that they had deserted the doctrine of the
Church of England. To this Davenant replied:
I know that no man can
embrace Arminianism in the doctrines of predestination and grace, but he must
desert the articles agreed upon by the church of England; nor in the point of
perseverance, but he must vary from the received opinions of our best approved
doctors in the English church.30
Clearly, Davenant rejected Arminianism but
maintained a view of the atonement which held that Christ in some respect had
died for all.
The English delegation were in a clear minority on
this issue. Most of the other delegations wanted to distinguish between the
sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death. They asserted that the atonement of
Christ upon the cross was sufficient for all but that it was not efficacious
for all, as it was not intended for all. This position was eventually reflected
in the Canons which were formulated
at the conclusion of the Synod.31 Article 8 of the Second Head of
Doctrine states:
For this was the sovereign
counsel, and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the
quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of his Son should extend to all the elect, for
bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them
infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ
by the blood of the cross, whereby he confirmed the new covenant, should
effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation and language, all those,
and those only, who were from eternity
chosen to salvation, and given to him by the Father; that he should
confer upon them faith, which together with all the other saving gifts of the
Holy Spirit, he purchased for them by his death; should purge them from all
sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and
having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them
free from every spot and blemish to the enjoyment in his own presence forever.32
[Emphasis MS]
While from one perspective, it can be asserted
that the Canons repudiate expressly
the views of Davenant and Ward, it is also evident that the Canons were couched in such terms as to
be not overly offensive to any of the delegations present at Dort. This view of
the Canons is supported by the fact
that all of the delegates, including Franciscus Gomarus and Matthias Martinius,
signed their names to the Canons, yet
those men were not in agreement with the views of other members of the synod on
a number of issues.33 It is
interesting to observe that the Canons
do not contain a specific statement which categorically denies a universal
intent, though, as observed above, there are statements which explicitly
contend that the work of Christ is a product of God’s everlasting love for the
elect and is specifically ordained to save them. It would seem that this lack
of a positive rejection that Christ’s death on the cross was for all men was
the reason why men such as Davenant and Ward were prepared to append their
signatures to the Canons at the close
of the synod.
As we shall observe shortly, Davenant acknowledged
that there was a special grace whereby Christ’s death was specifically for the
elect. However, he also asserted that Christ’s death was also for all men, though
not savingly. Rather, Christ’s death was for all men so that they might be
saved in the event that they should believe.
Given this distinction, it is possible to
appreciate how Davenant could be persuaded to adopt the synod’s statements
which indicated that the efficacy of Christ’s death was limited to those only
who had been from all eternity elected to salvation.
18. It is not the purpose of this paper to explore
the rights and the wrongs associated with the manner in which the synod
proceeded.
19. The synod subsequently condemned them in
absentia.
20. Peter Y De Jong, Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great
Synod of Dort, 1618-1619.
(Reformed Fellowship Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan), pp. 224, 225. The purpose
in detailing the assertions of the Remonstrants is that it assists in discovering
the parameters of Davenant’s own views.
------------------
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
21 The English delegation identified their
differences with the Remonstrants in a letter which they wrote to the
Archbishop of Canterbury dated 21 March 1618 where they said:
In our avouching and
declaring in this and other Articles, some fruits of Christ’s death, not
comprised in the Decree of election, but afforded more generally, yet confined
to the Visible Church (as viz. true and spiritual Graces accompanying the
Gospel, and conferred upon some non-elect) we gain ground of the Remonstrants,
and thereby easily repel, not only their Instances of Apostasie, but also their
odious imputation of illusion in the general propounding of the Evangelical
Promises, as we are ready more clearly to demonstrate. Nor do we with the
Remonstrants leave at large the benefit of our Saviour’s death, as only
propounded loosely to all ex aequo,
and to be applied by the arbitrary act of man’s will; but we expressly avouch,
for the behoof of the Elect, a special intention both in Christ’s offering, and
God the Father accepting, and from that intention a particular application of
that Sacrifice, by conferring Faith and other Gifts infallibly bringing the
Elect to Salvation. And that our care in advancing this Doctrine might be the
more remarkable, we in these our Theses have set in the forefront our
Propositions concerning God’s special Intention. John Hale’s Golden Remains of the Ever Memorable Mr.
John Hales (London: Printed by Tho. Newcomb for Robert Pawlet, 1673), p.
185.
22. Indications of the doctrinal positions of the
English delegates can be gleaned from the reports sent from Dort to Sir Dudley
Carlton. Carlton was the English special ambassador to the United Provinces. He
initially received reports from his chaplain, John Hales, and latterly from
Walter Balcanqual.
23.
Neal, Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 467.
24. Ibid.,
p. 101.
25. Ibid.
26. Hales, Op.
cit., pp. 130, 131.
27. Godfrey, Op.
cit., p. 177.
28. Ibid.,
p. 178.
29. Hales, Op.
cit., p. 188.
30.
Neal, Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 467.
31. It is of interest to note that, despite the
wording of the Canons, Ward, because
the biblical references to “all men” were not specifically equated with the
elect alone, felt able to assert that the Canons
had defined “nothing ... which might gainsay the confession of the Church of
England.” Usher, Works, xv. 145.
32. Hales, Op.
cit., pp. 130-132.
No comments:
Post a Comment