The History of the Free Offer Chapter 5 Davenant and the Westminster Assembly
|
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 Saumer 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.
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 offered 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 offered 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 Amyrault, 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 Amyrault 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 universalsufficient 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
Return
to Table of Contents
Go to Chapter Six
Foot-Notes
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.
29
pp. 56-59.
30
Cf. for this material pp. 152-156.
31
Vol. I, p. 770.
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 Confession."
38 Historical
Theology, William Cunningham , The Banner of Truth Trust,
Edinburgh, 1979, Vol. II, pp. 396, 397.