"Perichoresis:" Theological Word of the Day

Perichoresis Theological Word of the Day

[pehr’-ih-koe-ree‘-sis]

(Greek peri, “around” + Greek choreio, “dance”)

Refers to the mutual indwelling and relationship of the members of the Trinity. This concept is emphasized more by Eastern Christianity, but is affirmed by all orthodox branches of Trinitarian Christianity. St John of Damascus defines it such: “The subsistences [i.e., the three Persons] dwell and are established firmly in one another. For they are inseparable and cannot part from one another, but keep to their separate courses within one another, without coalescing or mingling, but cleaving to each other. For the Son is in the Father and the Spirit: and the Spirit in the Father and the Son: and the Father in the Son and the Spirit, but there is no coalescence or commingling or confusion. And there is one and the same motion: for there is one impulse and one motion of the three subsistences, which is not to be observed in any created nature” (The Orthodox Faith, 1.14).

Romans 5.9, Justification, Future Salvation, Article XI

Romans 5.9 is gold:

Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

πολλω ουν μαλλον δικαιωθεντες νυν εν τω αιματι αυτου σωθησομεθα δι αυτου απο της οργης

The aorist passive participle is "grand." (δικαιωθεντες νυν = having now been justified.) This is Mt. Everest.

The future passive indicative is equally grand. σωθησομεθα = we shall be saved.

We're talking mountaintop majestic peaks here. Grand beyond words.

Articles of Religion.
XI. Of the Justification of Man.

WE are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

Westminster Confession, Anglicans, Saving Faith

Can the Westminster Confession of Faith be improved in any way? As it is, Ch.14, it's most excellent and warrants memorization, meditation and exposition. It's clearly superior to the XXXIX Articles.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch.14 (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/):

"Of Saving Faith

I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,[1] is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,[2] and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word,[3] by which also,... and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.[4]

II. By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein;[5] and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands,[6] trembling at the threatenings,[7] and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.[8] But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.[9]

III. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong;[10] may often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory:[11] growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ,[12] who is both the author and finisher of our faith.[13]"

But while, at many places, the WCF is more excellent than the 39 Articles, nothing beats a good, classical, 1662 Prayer Book service where music also, alongside the liturgy, in the Cathedral and parish tradition, is viewed as theology, worship and piety. As Anglicans, we just don't throw out our goodly, Godly, and Biblical Prayer Book, despite rash imputations from Anabaptists, Revivalists, or some Puritans.

I strongly expect the Formula of Concord (F o C) to have some good sections on par with the WCF concerning "Saving Faith." In fact, I suspect--without checking again--that there are some "very superior" sections in the F o C.

A few recommended edits to the Westminster Confession of Faith "for the Presbyterians."

Add another sentence or two re: the comforts and joys of the Gospel. Recognize the joy, praise and thanksgiving in doctrine, worship and piety as evinced by Psalms 95 (Venite), 96, 98, 100 and so many other places. Also, add a few sentences about the great delight that the justified saints take in His Majesty's Word, Sacraments, and the Communion of the Saints. Buff it with the spirit of the Heidelberg Catechism and amplify Q/A 1 of the WSC, about "enjoying God."

"For the Anglicans," get hot and get on it! Grow up and learn to confess the Biblical faith!

The Ninth Sunday after Trinity, Original Sin, and Free Will

The Ninth Sunday after Trinity

The Collect.

GRANT to us, Lord, we beseech thee, the spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful; that we, who cannot do any thing that is good without thee, may by thee be enabled to live according to thy will; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

‎1. An Augustinian Collect, as previously noted (and as noted elsewhere), yet take the measure of this heady, if not fatuous, blog.

2. http://www.rtbp.wordpress.com/ re: "The Antinomy of Human Free-Will and Divine Omnipotence."

3. Clearly, clear-headed Anglicans need "reform" again.

4. On this matter, we pray with our goodly, Biblical and Godly Prayer Book (unlike some of the brash Puritans, like John Knox):

The Second Collect at Evening Prayer.

O GOD, from whom all holy desires, all good counsels, and all just works do proceed; Give unto thy servants that peace which the world cannot give; that both our hearts may be set to obey thy commandments, and also that by thee, we, being defended from the fear of our enemies, may pass our time in rest and quietness; through the merits of Jesus Christ our Saviour. Amen.

And also regarding the denial and those Anglican Clergy who deny, mitigate or minimize original sin and its disablements, vis a vis Article IX (Original Sin) and X (Free Will), let us pray:

The Third Collect, for Aid against all Perils.

LIGHTEN our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord; and by thy great mercy defend us from all perils and dangers of this night; for the love of thy only Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Amen.

5. We would do well to upgrade and amplify the Articles with consideration from the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 6, to wit (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/):

Chapter VI

Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof

I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit.[1] This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.[2]

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God,[3] and so became dead in sin,[4] and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.[5]

III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.[7]

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.[10]

V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated;[11] and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.[12]

VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[13] does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[14] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[15] and curse of the law,[16] and so made subject to death,[17] with all miseries spiritual,[18] temporal,[19] and eternal.[20]

The Autobiography of a ‘Meer Christian': Richard Baxter's Account of the Restoration

www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_122_2_Gatiss.pdf

Lee Gatiss

While undertaking research recently for a book on the ejection and persecution of the puritans from the Church of England in 1662,1 I had the pleasure of reading a first edition copy of Richard Baxter’s autobiography. The aim of this article is to assess the value of Reliquiae Baxterianae published in 1696 as a source for the history of the Restoration religious settlement, and to examine Baxter’s agenda and bias. Though this decisive religious settlement underwent various legislative alterations and was enforced with differing degrees of severity during the reign of Charles II, its essential foundations were laid in 1660–1662. It is to these decisive years that we will, therefore, particularly confine our attention. Baxter’s account is illuminating at this point both personally and historically, and gives us an important insight into the mindset of those who were ejected from the national church in the seventeenth century. For all its prolix verbosity, it remains a ‘must read’.

Comparing Baxter to Other Contemporary Sources

To begin with, it is instructive to compare Baxter’s account of the Restoration with other contemporary sources. Debates in the Lords and Commons from this period ‘are among the most badly reported in all seventeenth-century parliaments’; even the ‘government’s own newspapers preferred rather to suppress information than to disseminate it’.2 Where evidence exists of intragovernmental discussion and skirmishing at court ‘it is usually to be found in
the least trustworthy sources: the fading memories and anecdotes of retired politicians, or the gossip of men only on the fringes of the court’.3 Among the most valuable contemporaneous accounts are those from Edward Hyde (Duke of Clarendon and Lord Chancellor),4 Gilbert Burnet (historian and later Bishop of Salisbury),5 and Samuel Pepys (Government administrator and famous diarist).6 As Seaward points out, however, ‘Burnet spent most of
the early 1660s in Scotland or abroad: his History of my own time relies for this period on second-hand information and, written in the 1680s, the rather simplistic views of early Restoration politics which it contains are heavily influenced and distorted by later events’.7 Burnet himself admits his all too limited perspective when he writes that for the first twelve years of Charles II’s reign, ‘I had only such a general knowledge of the affairs of England as I could pick up at a distance’.8

Pepys often has invaluable information from men close to the court, and was indeed ‘the most informative’ of English diarists.9 Yet his own rise to prominence at the heart of English politics did not really occur until after 1662, and especially (given his role as a naval administrator) during the Anglo–Dutch War of 1664-1667.10 So although what he writes of the religious landscape is occasionally of interest,11 it is often merely anecdotal and of dubious trustworthiness or value. He hears, for instance, of a meeting of ‘Episcopalian and Presbyterian Divines’ in October 1660 with the King and Lord Chancellor but can give no details.12 He hears reports that the City was threatening to abandon the King if he did not favour Presbytery, which even he is slightly dubious of,13 although he is clear on 17th August, 1662 about the City’s dissatisfaction with the impending ejection of the puritans.14 There are hints in the diary of the fragility of the Restoration regime throughout 1661-1662, which recollection of daily uncertainty is an indispensable corrective for those who study the period at a distance and might consider what transpired to have been inevitable.

The ‘most detailed and most lucid contemporary exposition of the events and policies of the 1660s’15 comes from Clarendon. His Continuation of the History of the Grand Rebellion was written to defend his reputation and legacy after his fall from power (1667-1672). It has the pungent scent of self-justification about it, and although written with a certain historical awareness and purpose he was forced, because of his exile in France, to rely almost solely
on his own memory without recourse to official documents (or other actors) back in England. Although ‘no study of the 1660s can ignore it’16 because Clarendon was at the very centre of the struggles between church parties, king, and parliament in 1660-1662, it remains a source which must be handled with great care, like most politicians’ biographies.

Baxter’s account of this formative period in church relations compares favourably to these other versions of events.17 He can be praised and criticised for various similar reasons. Unlike Burnet, he was not only in the country at the time but had access to figures at the heart of the establishment. We hear of him meeting the king himself and being appointed his Chaplain-in-Ordinary;18 he is friendly to an extent with Clarendon19 and has meetings with him for
various reasons;20 he knew all the actors in the tussle for supremacy within the new religious order;21 he was elected a member of Convocation,22 and was the leader of the Puritan–Presbyterian group in the negotiations at the Savoy.23 Not only was Baxter a major player, he was, like Pepys, also a meticulous and disciplined administrator and writer. He records many details from events he experienced first-hand, and his account includes a wealth of valuable
documentation. The end result is ‘a sprawling monster’ according to Lamont, ‘containing everything but Baxter’s laundry list’.24 A. G. Matthews comments—

To Matthew Sylvester, his literary executor, he left for publication a mass of autobiographical and other papers, which Sylvester, with a pathetically exaggerated reverence for his eminent colleague’s manuscript, laboriously copied out and published without editorial selection or rearrangement. As a result there appeared in 1696, under the title Reliquiae Baxterianae, a
folio of 800 pages, in which Baxter’s personal story, often of intense interest and value, was interrupted by arid wastes of those casuistical subtleties which were the great divine’s disastrous foible.25

Sylvester’s ‘pathetically exaggerated reverence’ for Baxter’s literary legacy26 may have left us much of merely ‘casuistical’ interest, but it also ensured that various historically useful documents were preserved for posterity. Time and again in tomes such as Cardwell’s Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England or his equally useful History of Conferences or indeed Gould’s Documents Relating to the Settlement of the Church of England by the Act of Uniformity of 1662 (the standard sources for documentary evidence of this period)27 it is from Baxter that the text of important papers has been drawn.28 Some of these papers were never published or officially submitted to the committees for which they were drawn up, but they were certainly discussed and argued over.29 At other times, we know who wrote certain things because of Baxter’s identification of them in his account,30 and occasionally we can glimpse the process of amendment and refinement in Presbyterian presentations.31

Besides, pace Matthews, casuistical subtlety was often a feature not just of Baxter’s writing and thought but of the puritan mindset generally; so even in what to the modern reader may appear his dull moments he is not without value for reconstructing the thought-world of a key group in the 1660s. His careful, methodical commentary and collection of documents is of immense importance.

His record of events is often no less helpful. He punctuates his narrative with the record of various events in English and international history to which he is no more accurate an eye-witness than many others or concerning which he had no first-hand access to the facts. So we hear of the Great Fire, the Anglo-French War, and other incidents of this sort. Undoubtedly he is not to be privileged as a source for everything which occurred in the 1660s.32 Yet concerning the religious settlement, he is an exceptionally useful (though far from perfect) source. In his peerless account of the Savoy Conference he writes, ‘You have had the Substance of our wandering Discourses; you are next to have our unprofitable Disputes’.33 There is no commentary on the conference so full and detailed, and which gives such an insight into the
politics and theology of the disagreements there, a snapshot of the puritan prelate
divide. He adds—

Were it not a thing in which an Historian so much concerned in the business is apt to be suspected of partiality, I would here annex a Character of each one that managed this business as they shewed themselves. But because it hath that inconvenience, I will omit it, only telling you what part each one of them acted in all this Work.34

He was certainly conscious of the possibility of writing with historical bias, being one of the major players in these events. Although his character studies of the men involved at Savoy would have been immensely interesting it is no less useful to the historian to know the part played by each of the men.35

The Purpose of Baxter’s Account

Although Baxter was aware of the dangers of writing history with ‘partiality’ he was clearly not free of it entirely. There is an agenda to his work. There is some discussion about the development of the autobiographical genre in seventeenth century England; it is said to owe much to the puritan concern for self-examination, and their desire to have a journal of God’s dealings with both themselves and the nation or church for thanksgiving or encouragement in
later years.36 As far as Pepys was concerned, his diary was for personal pleasure. It was also a way of ‘canalising the stream of experience’,37 taking the often random occurrences in his full and eventful life and reducing them to some kind of order. He must also have had an eye on the future, whether it was to be able to justify his own actions to a Parliamentary committee or to
entertain his future readers (for whom, presumably, he had the manuscript bound), though it was never designed for the press.38

Baxter’s account has similar motivations. Not only in writing up his account some years later,39 but also in his dealings with ‘the opposition’ at the time, he had a keen eye trained on the future. His prescience about the future course of events and the intentions of the ‘anglican’ extremists to exclude the puritans were notable. He made sure they were noted and recorded so that posterity could mark how clearly he knew what was at stake. This is well illustrated by the fact that when offered the chance at Savoy to present written papers rather than having a verbal debate, Baxter leapt at the chance. He gave four reasons for this, the fourth being—

But above all, that else our Cause would never be well understood by our People, or Foreigners, or Posterity; but our Conference and Cause would be misreported and published as the Conference at Hampton Court was to our Prejudice, and none durst contradict it. And that what we said for our Cause, would this way come fully and truly to the Knowledge of England and of other Nations; and that if we refused this Opportunity of leaving upon Record our Testimony against Corruptions, for a just and moderate Reformation, we were never like to have the like in hast again.40

There should be, he says, ‘a standing Witness to Posterity’ of what went on.41 As Baxter rightly notes, the Hampton Court conference of 1604 was the closest precedent for the meeting at the Savoy. That meeting between James I (plus Archbishop and eight Bishops, eight Deans, and one Archdeacon) and a party of four or five moderate Puritans saw the Puritans denied their exceptions against the Prayer Book, though they claimed the support of around 1000
ministers in the Millenary Petition.42

According to Schaff, ‘The accounts of the Hampton Court Conference are mostly derived from the partial report of Dr. William Barlow, Dean of Chester, who was present’.43 Needless to say, his published account was not at all favourable to the Puritans, whose objections he presents as frivolous and unlearned while giving an obsequiously laudatory view of the King and his
Bishops.44

The Hampton Court conference led to the enforcement of new rules of subscription for ministers which ‘caused the deprivation of some puritan ministers’.45 Baxter foresaw that this might well happen again after the Savoy Conference. So the King was reminded that the ceremonies objected to by the puritans had been ‘a Cause of depriving the Church of the Fruit and Benefit which might have been reaped from the Labours of many Learned and Godly
ministers’ who would not be able to sign up to their use. They had been the occasion for ‘great Separations from our Church…[and] may be more likely than ever heretofore to produce the same Inconveniences’.46 He warned that many ministers ‘prefer the Peace of their Consciences in God’s Worship above all their Civil Concernments whatsoever’.47

Baxter’s prescience was not appreciated by either side. Calamy and Reynolds were troubled by the plainness of what Baxter wrote during the conference, and urged him to leave out predictions of what would happen if there was no agreement between the Puritans and the Church of England, fearing it might be heard as a threat. He did not want to leave out such things ‘and thereby made them think me too plain and unpleasing, as never used to the Language or Converse of a Court: But it was not my unskilfulness in a more pleasing Language, but my Reason and Conscience (upon foresight of the Issue) which was the Cause’.48

The Bishops, on the other hand, were also offended by Baxter’s foresight. They would, he said, end up calling him and others ‘Schismaticks’ because they disagreed on some matters which were really of secondary importance— This speech they were offended at, and said, that I sought to make them odious, by representing them as cruel, and Persecutors, as if they intended to silence and cast out so many. And it was one of the greatest matters of Offence against me, that I foreknew and foretold them what they were about to do…I told them that either they do intend such a Course or not: If they do, why should they think us criminal for knowing it? If not, what need had we of all these Disputes with them? which were only to persuade them not to cast out the Ministers and the People on these Accounts. And it was but a few Weeks after this that Bishop Morley himself did silence me, forbidding me to preach in his Diocese (sic), who now took it so heinously that I did foretell it….So dangerous is it to foreknow what cruel Men are about to do.49

Clearly he always had an eye on the momentousness of the occasion and the seriousness of the consequences, acting and writing with that future which he foresaw in mind.50 As he says himself, ‘I thought that the Day and Cause commanded me those two things, which then were objected against me as my Crimes, viz. speaking too boldly, and too long.’51 He was correct about the crucial nature of ‘the Day’, and I do not doubt his insight into the probable result of the negotiations, nor judge his claims to it to be an invention of a later date. Yet he makes as much of it as he can in his written account, for obvious apologetic reasons. He carefully leaves the impression that he was correct to be so forthright, hindsight justifying him since the puritans were in fact ejected and silenced.

Yet, however, another interpretation might partly blame Baxter himself for this, given that he was not the most skilled negotiator in the Presbyterian camp. Radcliff dismissively writes of his leadership and contribution at Savoy that— Ecclesiastical politics, like secular, is the art of the possible. Baxter, a visionary, had little conception of the art. Having irritated his opponents, he was surprised and mortified by their indifference (as it seemed) to his ‘Work’. It does not appear to have occurred to him that the bishops would see in his project the promise not of peace, but of a continuance of strife.52

J. M Lloyd Thomas while more sympathetic concurs when he says, ‘He towered above most of even the leaders of his contemporaries, but he had a fatal gift for dividing his followers and alienating all but a few through-fire and-water admirers…by expecting others to have a like candour [as he had] he acted on smaller minds as a maddening irritant.53 That certainly seems to have been his effect upon the bishops.

Bias in Baxter’s Account

No historian is without bias in re-telling his narrative, least alone one who was also an actor in the story. Occasionally we glimpse Baxter’s more obvious attempts at self-justification, such as when he clears his name from accusations that he was not a Chaplain to the King.54 We see this again when his letter to Clarendon refusing a bishopric is reprinted, and we are given a chance to sample his humility in not only turning it down for himself but suggesting other good men who should be so honoured, and his suggestion that he would be content merely to return to Kidderminster as the curate.55 As N. H. Keeble points out, Baxter must have had only one audience in mind when he wrote: posterity. In large part he sought ‘to exonerate himself’ and ‘set the record straight’.56 Yet his account is more than merely ‘a careful exercise in self-vindication’ as Cooper avers.57 It is also a plea for what he himself calls ‘mere Christianity’—
I am a CHRISTIAN, a MEER CHRISTIAN, of no other Religion; and the Church that I am of is the Christian Church … I am against all Sects and dividing Parties: But if any will call Meer Christians by the name of a Party, because they take up with Meer Christianity, Creed, and Scripture, and will not be of any dividing or contentious Sect, I am of that Party which is so against Parties.58

It is this same ‘meer Christianity’ for which he argues in the Reliquiae Baxterianae. So when discussing the contending parties in debates over church government he writes— each one had some Truths in peculiar, which the other overlookt, or took little notice of, and each had their proper Mistakes which gave advantage to their Adversaries; though all of them had so much truth in common among them as would have made these Kingdoms happy, if it had been unanimously and soberly reduced to practice, by prudent and charitable Men.59

Baxter was called to be part of a Committee to draw up a list of the ‘fundamentals of religion’ as a test for toleration under the Protectorate. ‘I knew how ticklish a Business the Enumeration of Fundamentals was,’ he writes, ‘and of what very ill Consequence it would be if it were ill done.’60 His conclusion therefore was that ‘I would have had the Brethren to have offered
the Parliament the Creed, Lord’s Prayer, and Decalogue alone as our Essentials or Fundamentals; which at least contain all that is necessary to Salvation, and hath been by all the Ancient Churches taken for the Sum of their Religion’.61

It is this brand of moderate Christianity for which he stood during the Restoration period, and which he seeks to recommend in his historical account. His ‘constant concern is to distinguish this central body of moderate opinion from the formal excesses of the Episcopalians on the one hand, and the enthusiastic excesses of fanatics on the other’.62

His agenda here is also observable in the way he categorizes conformists and nonconformists
after the settlement of 1662. His taxonomy looks roughly like this:63 It is always instructive to note how people divide up their world, as it tells us something of their perceptions and prejudices. Baxter’s taxonomy of responses to the 1662 Act of Uniformity is particularly interesting because of the way he presents the different parties and thus positions himself amongst them. He clearly has little real sympathy with the conformists. The Presbyterians who
conformed he described thus: ‘Some were young raw Men that were never Conformists Non-Conformists Presbyterians in possession before the Restoration —those allowed by their bishop
to subscribe ‘in their own sense’ to the settlement, either with vocal reservations or in a paper.
Old School—for the old religious order, anti- Covenant, anti-Wars but couldn’t ‘assent and consent to all things’ now imposed. Latitudinarians—Cambridge men and Arminians, charitable on salvation of heathen, scholarly types. Didn’t like the settlement but not so bothered as to leave the Church over it. Reconcilers —those who abhorred party spirit, were for Ignatius’s
episcopacy but not English diocesan frame, like what’s good in all forms of govt but see bad in
all too. Hearty conformists a. prelate types by conviction who hated nonconformists. b. prelate types who were moderate towards nonconformists (and twisted the sense of subscription somewhat) c. ignorant ones who were just in it for money and power. Presbyterians Independents some good, but some ‘addicted to separations and divisions’, opened
door to Anabaptists and other sects. versed in such kind of Controversies…Some had Wives and Children and Poverty, which were great Temptations to them.’64 The implication is that they
were able to get away with something others could not countenance, or that they were forced into conforming for financial reasons.

Similarly, the Latitudinarians, he declares, place far too charitable a sense on the words of the Oaths and Laws which bind them, and are guilty of ‘Jesuitical Equivocation’.65 This sort of twisting of the sense of the conditions of conformity was also practiced by some of the prelatical Episcopal Party, though many of them were merely ‘raw, or ignorant Readers, or unlearned Men, or sensual scandalous Ones, who would be hot for any thing by which they might rise or be maintained’. Many of the conforming Presbyterians and Latitudinarians he admits are ‘laudable Preachers…their profitable Preaching is used by God’s Providence’.66 Yet he clearly has little empathy for their reasoning.

As for the Nonconformists, Baxter is also careful to make distinctions. Some he knew ‘were for the old Conformity’ pre-Civil War, but could not assent and consent to everything in the new conformity. These were few. A greater number, he says, were ‘Reconcilers’, those ‘of no Sect or Party, but abhorring the very Name of Parties’. They are described positively as peaceful, reasonable, moderate men: they are after all ‘of the Judgment which I have described my self to be in the beginning of this Book’. These, and the Presbyterians, he says ‘(if I be not taken for a partial Witness) are the soberest, and most judicious, unanimous, peaceable, faithful, able, constant Ministers in this Land, or that I have heard or read of, in the Christian World!’67 Yet clearly he is showing here more than a little partiality!

He just as clearly wishes to distinguish himself from many of the Independents. Some of them are ‘serious godly People, some of them moderate’. Yet among them are also reckoned some who are ‘more raw, and self-conceited, and addicted to Separations and Divisions, their Zeal being greater than their Knowledge’. He has in mind some like John Owen who he elsewhere described as a ‘breaker’, but also those who ‘are proper Fanaticks, looking too much to
Revelations within, instead of the Holy Scriptures’.68 Thus we see that Baxter positions himself as a most moderate and peaceable fellow in contradistinction to various extremists on both the left and the right.

Typically he can find something praiseworthy in some of those to either side of him (Latitudinarians and conforming Presbyterians; Presbyterians and some Independents) but not to certain others (intolerable Sects and Independents who are too fond of divisions; carnally-motivated Conformists). Thus we see that his attraction to ‘meer Christianity’ functions as an organising principle throughout his narrative and colours the way he sees and describes events.
Yet Baxter retains a fascinating power to surprise the reader too. Having described what happened on Bartholomew Day and the ejection and silencing of 1800-2000 ministers, he manages not to show immediate sympathy but to censure many of them— when Pastors and People should have been humbled for their Sins, and lamented their former Negligence and Unfruitfulness, most of them were filled with Disdain and Indignation against the Prelates, and were ready with Confidence to say, ‘God will not long suffer so wicked and cruel a Generation of Men: It will, be but a little while till God will pull them down’: And thus Men were puft up by other Mens sinfulness, and kept from a kindly humbling of themselves.69 Thus we see the truth of his assertion that he was no merely partisan thinker or puritan apologist.

Conclusion

To sum up, it is hard to disagree with Tim Cooper’s assessment when he says— In conclusion, the Reliquiae Baxterianae is a complicated source that must be used with extreme care. The point is, though, that it can be used. Armed with a cautious distrust, and aware of potential areas of distortion, we can extract from this difficult book an understanding of Richard Baxter that is both accurate and illuminating.70 The Reliquiae Baxterianae is equally useful, when handled with equal sensitivity, as a source for the Restoration religious settlement. Despite its
flaws, it remains the premier and vital starting point for any serious engagement with this crucial episode in English Church history. A reading of the original or of one of the more modern abridgements is highly recommended.

Revd. LEE GATISS is Associate Minister of St. Helen’s, Bishopsgate in the City
of London, and editor of The Theologian: The Internet Journal for Integrated
Theology.

1. The Tragedy of 1662: The Ejection and Persecution of the Puritans (London:
Latimer Trust, 2007).
2. P. Seaward, The Cavalier Parliament and the Reconstruction of the Old Regime,
1661-1667 (Cambridge: CUP, 1989), p. 6.
3. Ibid., p. 7.
4. As Lord Chancellor, Clarendon was Charles II’s most important minister at a time
when the role and title of ‘Prime Minister’ was not yet developed. His account of
1660-1662 is found in The Life of Edward Earl of Clarendon Lord High
Chancellor of England and Chancellor of the University of Oxford: in which is
included a Continuation of his History of the Grand Rebellion New Edition Vol. 1
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1827) pp. 311ff. (vol. 1 p. 311 to vol. 2 p. 202).
5. Burnet’s account first appeared in 1723 and is found in Bishop Burnet’s History of
His own Time Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Hamilton, Balfour, and Neill, 1753) Book 2,
pages 129-285 or in the New Edition of 1850 (London: William S. Orr & Co,
1850), pp. 60-133.
6. The standard short (1096 page) edition is R. Latham, The Shorter Pepys from The
Diary of Samuel Pepys, a new and complete transcription edited by Robert Latham
and William Matthews (London: Bell and Hyman, 1985) pages 1-248.
7. Seaward, op. cit., p. 7. Burnet’s time abroad was spent profitably; he learned
Hebrew at the feet of a rabbi in Amsterdam.
8. G. Burnet, History of his Own Time (London:William S. Orr&Co, 1850) Vol. 1, p. 60.
9. Latham, op.cit., page xxxviii.
10. Ibid., p. xxvi.
11. It is interesting, for instance, to hear him report on 7th July 1660 that this was the
first time he had ever heard ‘singing-men in Surplices in my life’—the Church of
England was re-establishing its old ritual (ibid., p. 61 cf. p. 145). On the 29th July
(p. 67) he complains that at one church service with the Bishop of Salsbury (sic) the
sermon was ‘cold’ and ‘the ceremonies did not please me, they do so overdo them’.
(see similar comments on 7th Oct., pp. 84-85). By November 1660 his minister at
St. Olave’s is beginning ‘to nibble at the Common Prayer… But the people have
beene so little used to it that they could not tell what to answer’ (4th Nov., p. 91).
12. Ibid., 22nd Oct., 1660, p. 88. His patron and source here, The Earl of Sandwich,
was “a perfect Sceptique” and not interested in such details. He also reports briefly
on the restoration of the Bishops to the Lords (p. 137).
13. Ibid., 26th July 1661 (p. 147).
14. Ibid., 17th August 1662, pp. 218-19. He also narrates the festivities on the Thames
the following Saturday, with 10,000 barges and boats, which must have been a
great distraction to the populace (p. 221).
15. Seaward, op.cit., p. 7.
16. Ibid., p. 8.
17. Baxter’s account is found in Reliquiae Baxterianae (London: Matthew Sylvester,
1696), Part II ,. 215-430. I am grateful to Wendy Bell (Oak Hill College Library)
for extended access to the first edition of this work from the Latimer Collection.
18. Reliquiae Baxterianae Part II p. 229.
19. E.g. ibid., p. 300: after a letter from the Lord Chancellor seeking favour for Baxter,
he writes, ‘Can any thing be more serious and cordial and obliging than all this: For
a Lord Chancellour that hath the Business of the Kingdom upon his hand…to take
up his time so much and often about so low a Person’.
20. They had many meetings together according to Part II p. 265, and he had ‘frequent
Business with the Lord Chancellour’ according to Part II p. 279.
21. His interactions with the Episcopal players is outlined in Baxter, op.cit., Part II p.
363-4. His knowledge of the puritans (both Presbyterian, Congregational and
otherwise) is seen in his lists of ejected ministers and descriptions of them in Part
III, pp. 90-98. His acquaintance with many other substantial people is seen in the
collection of letters mingled into the account, for which see Baxter's index under L
for correspondence with John Owen, Amyraut, Dr. Manton, the Government of
New England, Dr. Bates, as well as letters to and from Earls and various Ladies of
substance.
22. He and Calamy were elected according to Baxter, op.cit., Part II p. 333 but were
not able to take their places, being ‘excused’ by the Bishop of London. The election
itself was loaded in various ways in favour of the ‘Diocesan Party’, says Baxter.
23. Baxter refers to his lead role in speaking at Savoy in Baxter, op.cit., p. 364: “As for
myself, the reason why I spake so much was because it was the desire of my
Brethren, and I was loth to expose them to the hatred of the Bishops…”
24. W. Lamont, “The Religious Origins of the English Civil War,” in G. Schochet (ed.),
Religion, Resistance, and Civil War. Proceedings of the Folger Institute Center for
the History of British Political Thought, Vol. 3 (Washington, DC, 1990), p. 6 as
quoted in Cooper, op. cit., p. 198.
25. A. G. Matthews, Calamy Revised: Being a Revision of Edmund Calamy's Account
of the Ministers and Others Ejected and Silenced, 1660-1662 (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1988 [1934]), pp. xvi-xvii. These comments are not quite fair. It is the book’s immense size which led to Calamy’s abridgement and subsequent enlargement of the list of ejected ministers which stands behind Matthews’s own work. And yet Baxter is far from comprehensive in all that he records—hence my difficult, for example, in identifying him as the author of the letter from ‘A.B.’ to a ‘person of quality’ in The Tragedy of 1662, p. 27, fn. 83.
26. J. M. Lloyd Thomas, citing Calamy’s report of Sylvester’s treatment of the manuscript as almost a sacred thing not to be tampered with (he was ‘cramped by a sort of superstition’) says that Sylvester ‘regarded the MS. of the Autobiography with somewhat of the veneration which is offered to the relic of a saint’ in The Autobiography of Richard Baxter edited by J. M. Lloyd Thomas (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1925), p. x. He is also careful to point out that even Sylvester did suppress and modify some portions of the text he received, so that editorial
intervention, while not intrusive, was ‘far from negligible’ in some places.
27. E. Cardwell, Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England being a
collection of injunctions, declarations, orders, articles of inquiry, &c. from the year
1546 to 1716; with notes historical and explanatory (Oxford: OUP, 1839). E. Cardwell, A History of Conferences and Other Proceedings Connected with the Revision of the Book of Common Prayer; from the year 1558 to the year 1690 (Oxford: OUP, 1841). G. Gould, Documents Relating to the Settlement of the Church of England by the Act of Uniformity of 1662 (London: W. Kent & Co, 1862).
28. E.g., in Gould’s collection there are 35 documents and official papers (warrants, petitions, declarations, Acts of Parliament etc). Of these, 2 are taken from Clarendon’s Life, 8 are Acts or Proceedings of Parliament, 6 are from various other sources and more than half (19) are taken directly from Reliquiae Baxterianae.
29. See, for example, A Defence of our Proposals to His Majesty for Agreement in Matters of Religion in Baxter, op. cit., pp. 248-58 and Gould, op. cit., pp. 39-63 which Gould notes (quoting Baxter pp. 241-42) was never seen in the whole grand debate at the Savoy although it contains very useful evidence of the puritans’ objections to much of the ensuing church settlement.
30. E.g. The Preface to The Rejoinder of the Ministers to the Answer of the Bishops in Gould, op.cit., pp. 201-346 was written by Calamy according to Baxter, op.cit., p. 357, §229.
31. See, for example, the passages struck out of their petition to the King as presented at the end of the Savoy Conference which are retained in Baxter’s original version, as noted in Gould, op. cit., pp. 379-85.
32. Evelyn and Pepys are more useful chroniclers of the Fire and the War, for instance.
33. Baxter, op.cit., Part II p. 346.
34. Baxter, op.cit., Part II p. 363.
35. Baxter, op. cit., pp. 363-4.
36. See Keeble’s introduction to the Everyman edition of The Autobiography of Richard Baxter abridged by J. M. Lloyd Thomas, edited with an introduction by N. H.
Keeble (London : J. M. Dent & Sons, 1985), pp. xxvi-xxvii. He adds on page xxvii that in William Matthews’s bibliography of British Autobiographies there are 2 works before 1500, 14 for the 16th century, and some 200 for the 17th century. Latham, op. cit., p. xxxiii also notes that ‘the practice of keeping diaries’ from Elizabethan times onwards was stimulated by ‘the habit of self-examination encouraged by Protestantism’.
37. A vivid phrase from Latham’s introduction to The Shorter Pepys, p. xxxiv, and an
apt one for a Navy man.
38. According to Latham, op. cit., page xxxiv Pepys often drafted what he was going to write in a different book before he wrote up the final version in his diary. His diary was not just a stream of consciousness, therefore, but a deliberate attempt at literary, historical record which must surely have had a wider purpose than to titillate himself in old age with his former articulacy.
39. Much of Reliquiae Baxterianae has the hallmark of having been originally a series of diary entries, or at least to have been based on notes taken at the time of the events described. It was written up in stages some years later and finally published in 1696, five years after Baxter’s death. According to Cooper most of it was written in the mid-1660s. T. Cooper, Fear and Polemic in Seventeenth Century England: Richard Baxter and Antinomianism (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2001), p. 198.
40. Baxter, op. cit,. p. 306.
41. Ibid., p. 306. He often claims to have foreseen what would happen; see also page 334 where he says, “And because I foresaw what was like to be the end of our Conference…”.
42. See G. Davies, The Early Stuarts 1603-1660 2nd edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1959), pp. 69-70.
43. P. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996 reprint of 1931 edition), p. 708, fn. 2. Barlow’s account was published in 1604 and again in 1638.
44. Cf. also E. Cardwell, A History of Conferences and Other Proceedings Connected with the Revision of the Book of Common Prayer; from the year 1558 to the year 1690 (Oxford: OUP, 1841) ch. IV parts III-V which contain three short accounts
(including Barlow’s). See especially p. 184, ll. 24-28 where he describes some of their objections as “very frivolous” and is reminded of the saying that “A puritan The Autobiography of a ‘Meer Christian’ is a protestant frayed out of his wits.”
45. See Davies, op. cit., p. 71 who adds “The sympathy that naturally goes out to those who suffer because of conscientious scruples should not be allowed to obscure the correctness of Bancroft’s decision that ministers of the church must loyally accept its constitution or lose their benefices.”
46. Baxter, op. cit., p. 235.
47. Ibid., p. 236. Cf. Acknowledgement of some Ministers of London for the Declaration in Gould, op. cit., p. 102: “The liberty of our consciences, and the free exercise of our ministry in the work of our great Lord and Master, for the conversion of souls, ought to be, and are, more dear to us than all the profits and preferments of this world.”
48. Baxter, op. cit., p. 265 (emphasis mine).
49. Ibid., pp. 345-6. The conclusion that many would be silenced and cast out had been mooted before with Morley (see p. 340), who discussed it freely and countered with supposed examples of clerical suffering at the hands of the puritans previously.
50. Cf. also page 278 for further instances of writing with posterity in mind.
51. Ibid., p. 364.
52. Ratcliff, E. C., “The Savoy Conference and the Revision of the Book of Common Prayer,” in Nuttall, Geoffrey F. and Chadwick, Owen, From Uniformity to Unity 1662-1962 (London: SPCK, 1962), p. 127. Cf. also p. 108: “While, therefore, he sincerely desired accommodation with the bishops, he was not the most likely figure to bring it about, or to promote it.”
53. Lloyd Thomas, op.cit., pp. xxvi-xxvii. His comments about his friends were equally candid. Of Reynolds he writes (p. 364), ‘He was a solid, honest Man, but through mildness and excess of timorous reverence to great Men, altogether unfit to contend with them.’ The comment of George Marsden on J. Gresham Machen, another great ecclesiastical politician who spoke with often brutal candour, is pertinent here: ‘You can imagine that, if someone says things like this about one’s friends, that it might be easy to make enemies!’ Cf. G. M. Marsden, Understanding
Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), p. 187.
54. He narrates how the honour was conferred upon him on p. 229 (where the certificate he received at the time is reprinted), and how it was doubted (and he attacked for claiming it) on pp. 279-80.
55. Ibid, pp. 282-3.
56. See N. H. Keeble, “Autobiographer as Apologist: Reliquiae Baxterianae (1696)”,
Prose Studies, 9 (1986), pp. 110-111 as quoted in Cooper, op. cit., p. 198.
57. Cooper, op. cit., p. 198.
58. Baxter, Church History, “What History is credible…”, f. b1 as quoted in Keeble’s ntroduction to The Autobiography of Richard Baxter, p. xx.
59. Baxter, Reliquiae Baxterianae, p. 139.
60. Baxter, op.cit., p. 197.
61. Ibid., p. 198.
62. Keeble’s introduction, op.cit., p. xxviii.
63. The following table I derive from Baxter’s descriptions of ‘the true state of the Conformists and Nonconformists in England at this time’ on pp. 386-87. He continues to describe them and their several arguments in the subsequent pages. On this see also the helpful J. Pearce, Bishops and Baxter,” Churchman 112/3 (1998): 261-2.
64. Baxter, op. cit., p. 386.
65. For the phrase, see p. 421 where he also says ‘Charity is not blind, nor will it prove a fit Cover for a Lie’. For the similar phrase ‘Latitudinarian Equivocation’, see p. 427.
66. Ibid., p. 387.
67. Ibid., p. 387.
68. Baxter, op. cit., p. 387.
69. Baxter, op. cit., p. 385.
70. Cooper, op. cit., p. 201.

The Synod of Dort and the Complexities of Being Reformed « Biblical Horizons

The Synod of Dort and the Complexities of Being Reformed « Biblical Horizons

The Synod of Dort and the Complexities of Being Reformed
January 31, 2008 by Steven Wedgeworth

When I was first introduced to Reformed theology, I encountered “the five points of Calvinism” and “TULIP.” I was told that these came from the Synod of Dort, which essentially decided that Calvinism would be the accepted religion of the Reformed churches in Europe. Calvinism and TULIP were for the most part equivalent.

As I moved from a Reformed Baptist to a Presbyterian, I began to hear pastors mention that Calvinism was more than the five points. I began to learn about “covenant theology,” which served as the basis for baptizing infants. Calvinism now included the TULIP as well as covenant theology and infant baptism. Still later in my studies, I began to learn about the Calvinistic doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. My understanding of Calvinism broadened, but I still had a tendency to think of Dort when I heard the term Calvinist.

Given the central place of Dort in the history of Calvinism, I was surprised when I began to read R. L. Dabney’s Systematic Theology and his book The Five Points of Calvinism. He nearly dismissed the five points saying, “Historically, this title is of little accuracy or worth.”[1] As I continued to read in Dabney, I began to discover there were various schools within Calvinism, some of which disagreed in key places. Amazingly, Dabney, Charles Hodge, and William Shedd all distance themselves from theologians like Francis Turretin on the relationship between the decree of God and the cross of Christ, and even go so far as to explicitly reject key exegesis that underlies the “limited atonement” argument found in John Owen’s The Death of Death.[2] These 19th century Presbyterians were neither Arminians, nor Amyraldians though, but rather they represent what is called, for better or for worse, moderate Calvinism.[3]
How is it, I wondered, that I had never heard of this distinction before? Why have I been taught that the Five Points of Calvinism are the summary of Reformed theology? What is limited atonement? This brought on a bit of theological dizziness, and I was eager to learn more about the true history of Calvinism and the Synod of Dort. What did it teach concerning these matters, and what is its place in the larger Reformed church history?
At this point the reader must be warned. This discussion quickly becomes dangerous territory in the eyes of many contemporary Reformed thinkers. Indeed it is a sort of “read at your own risk” move. There are very few moderate Calvinists today, and the current of high Calvinism has become so strong that deviations will most certainly be condemned as Amyraldianism from the outset. Part of my intent is to alleviate this reaction and to shed some light on the facts of history. I think it will be shown that the actual history of Calvinism was always a variegated one, and the five points represented a heavily contextualized debate within one period of the larger Reformed tradition.

One of the first observations that needs to be made is that the theological dispute that lead up to the Synod of Dort occurred from inside the Reformed theological community. The Remonstrants would eventually argue for a clear departure from this tradition, but at the outset this was not the case. In other words, the debate was initially an intra-Reformed debate, not one between those inside and those outside of the tradition. Furthermore, there had been at least fourteen confessional documents composed prior to Dort, including the Tetrapolitan Confession, the 1st and 2nd Helvetic, the Scots Confession, the Belgic Confession, the 39 Articles, and the Heidelberg Catechism. The English and German delegates were as much concerned with maintaining their pre-existing standards as they were defending the specific writings of the Contra-Remonstrants. In fact the two parties in the Netherlands at that time are sometimes called the Arminians and the Gomarists, illustrating the regional particularity. King James I sent the British delegates to Dort with instructions to uphold the current faith of the Church of England.[4] David Pareus, writing from Heidelberg, also asked that no deviation from the Heidelberg catechism be made.[5] That there was an established and authoritative Reformed theological tradition prior to the Synod of Dort is obvious. Dort was not subscribed to by those outside of the Netherlands, though it was approved as sound doctrine by the various foreign delegates. This explains how it is that the German Reformed Church could continue with only the Heidelberg Catechism as a confessional document well into the 19th century.

This fairly self-evident historical review is necessary today because of subsequent history’s tendency to divide theological groups between “Anglicans,” “Puritans,” “separatists,” “non-conformists,” and still others, and then to simply give the title of “Calvinist” to the more extreme parties. Many within the Church of England also felt no need to apply the title of what they viewed to be a subset of Protestantism to themselves, opting instead to simply refer to the doctrine of the Church. Many conservative and “Reformed” English Churchmen valued the names of Augustine and Prosper as much or more than that of Calvin, and thus they did not refer to themselves as Calvinists. Further complicating maters is the tendency for the moderate Calvinists to criticize “rigid Calvinism.” Such a reference should not be interpreted as a slight against Calvin. “Rigid Calvinist” was the name given to the supralapsarians. It was not uncommon for a moderately Calvinistic Anglican (who never referred to himself as such) to seem antagonistic towards “Calvinism” when in reality it is the supralapsarians (or perhaps some of the Presbyterian-minded Puritans) he specifically had in mind. Sorting some of these matters out can be admittedly difficult, and our lack of familiarity with the pre-Puritan Protestant Church of England further handicaps us. Figures like Archbishop George Abbott, George Carleton, Samuel Ward, and John Davenant are not familiar to modern Presbyterians, but they should not therefore be categorized as simply sub-Reformed.

The controversy in the Netherlands was ignited by the writings of Arminius and his students, but it should also be noted that the phenomena of suprlapsarianism was just as novel. Arminius’s early writings were directed towards William Perkins and Francis Gomarus[6], and Morris Fuller, writing in 1897, can state that the origins of the controversy really began with the introduction of supralapsarianism into the Dutch academies.[7] Though it is certainly anachronistic to use such a label, the twelfth article of the French confession, the fifth chapter of the Scots Confession, the sixteenth article of the Belgic Confession, and the seventeenth article of the English 39 articles all present an infralapsarian doctrine. This is quite significant given Dort’s stated task of defending the Reformed tradition against destructive innovations.

The followers of Arminius presented their Remonstrance at The Hague in 1610, and the issues gained international notoriety. In England, Robert Abbot and George Carleton began refuting the Arminians. Grotius and Vorstius achieved some audience in England; however, both were eventually deemed heretics. Even King James I was vocal in opposing Arminianism. He called the Arminian preachers “seditious and heretical” and wrote that their doctrine was a “corrupt seed which that Enemy of God had sown.”[8] Some of the English Churchmen were eager to side with the contra-Remonstrants, but others, most notably James Ussher, Lancelot Andrewes, and John Overall argued for a middle course. Overall wrote three significant treatises on the Dutch controversy, and he proved especially influential on John Davenant. Peter White notes, “Davenant had gone to Dort armed with a four-page memorandum headed ‘Dr Overall. De Praedestinatione Divinea, De Morte Christi’.”[9] One of the most distinctive points in Overall’s treatise that reappears in Davenant’s writings at Dort is the combination of a universal and conditional atonement with a particular and efficacious atonement. According to this teaching, one could say that Christ died for all in one sense and that he did not die for all in another sense. This position, which was held in suspicion by the high Calvinists, is essentially the same as David Pareus’s additions to Ursinus’s Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.[10]
During the proceedings of Dort, certain significant differences among the divines became evident. Most famous perhaps is the dispute between Gomarus and Martinius,[11] but there were quite a few issues that proved controversial, including the place of the Apocrypha, the order of the decree of predestination, the foundation of election, the extent of the atonement, the universality of grace, the free offer of the gospel, and the temporary operations of the Spirit enjoyed by the Reprobate. By the end of the numerous debates and resolutions, Gomarus, who had been heading up the contra-remonstrant cause, would actually find himself in the minority.
The diversity at Dort, of course, is true of both tendencies. The British and Bremen delegates represented the more moderate strands of Calvinism, but there were also several high Calvinists present that tended towards outright hyper-Calvinism. The delegates from Friesland and Gelderland argued against the free offer of the gospel.[12] At the close of the Synod, the delegates from England, Hesse, and Bremen all requested that certain contra-Remonstrant positions be condemned, particularly statements found in the writings of Piscator.[13] Earlier in the proceedings, Gomarus had greatly disturbed the British when he stated, “As He predestinated man to death, so He predestinated him to sin, the only way to death.” Of this John Hales remarked, “And so he mended the question as tinkers mend kettles, and made it worse than before.”[14]
The British delegates at Dort are often portrayed as softer Calvinists. This description needs to be questioned for several reasons. The first is that the Remonstrants were originally invited to Dort. With their presence, the British and Bremen delegates are actually in the middle of the spectrum, with the Gomarists at the other extreme. When we compare the positions of the University of Heidelberg in the previous generation, as well as the broader English theological landscape, the British delegates at Dort can be seen to be well within the mainstream of Reformed orthodoxy. They were committed to absolute predestination, and could call upon citations from Calvin, Zanchius, Pareus, and their own James Ussher for support for their views on the atonement. There was even some division among the British delegates on these issues. Carleton, Balcanquall, and Goad were known for teaching a more restricted doctrine of the atonement, while Davenant and Ward were known for teaching a broader doctrine.[15] Initially Carleton and Balcanquall both sympathized with Gomarus, asking Martinius to modify his position, however through the persuasive arguments of Davenant, as well as the intemperate behavior of Gomarus, the British eventually agreed among themselves to support Martinius’s position affirming that election is founded in the person of Christ.[16] The official British position on the canons of Dort can be found in their Collegiat Suffrage,[17] and while it is true that Davenant and Ward were successful in obtaining a majority of their views, Anthony Milton notes, “Some of the points initially desired by Ward and Davenant were excluded from the final Suffrage.”[18]
In considering the place of the British and their views, we should also note the impression that they were able to make upon the final version of the Canons of Dort. The Canons are infralapsarian. In fact, the opposition to supralapsarianism was so strong that at one point, Bishop Carleton requested that supralapsarianism be included among the rejected errors. To avoid this decision, Gomarus appealed to the authority of English theologians like William Perkins and upon their reputation was able to avoid condemnation.[19] The canons of Dort also emphasize the infinite worth of Christ’s sacrifice and the free offer of the gospel. The British were unsuccessful in persuading Dort to ground the gospel offer in the worth of the atonement, however, and thus this point has to be understood as a bit of a compromise. Certain high Calvinists opposed the free offer, and others defended it solely as a Christian duty, not having a necessary implication on the particulars regarding the extent of the atonement.[20]
One of the most striking achievements of the British at Dort is seen in what they were able to keep from being listed among the rejected errors. Initially a proposal had been made to reject as an error the teaching that the reprobate could attain a state of temporary justification. The British protested and were, amazingly, successful in keeping this position from being considered heretical. Their reasons for doing so are worth quoting in full:

We ourselves think that this doctrine is contrary to Holy Scriptures, but whether it is expedient to condemn it in these our canons needs great deliberation. On the contrary, it would appear

1. That Augustine, Prosper and the other Fathers who propounded the doctrine of absolute predestination and who opposed the Pelagians, seem to have conceded that certain of those who are not predestinated can attain the state of regeneration and justification. Indeed, they use this very argument as an illustration of the deep mystery of predestination; which cannot be unknown to those who have even a modest acquaintance with their writings.

2. That we ought not without grave cause to give offence to the Lutheran churches, who in this matter, it is clear, think differently.

3. That (which is of greater significance) in the Reformed churches themselves, many learned and saintly men who are at one with us in defending absolute predestination, nevertheless think that certain of those who are truly regenerated and justified, are able to fall from that state and to perish and that this happens eventually to all those, whom God has not ordained in the decree of election infallibly to eternal life. Finally we cannot deny that there are some places in Scripture which apparently support this opinion, and which have persuaded learned and pious men, not without great probability.[21]



The British were concerned about the interest of the Lutheran churches because James I had explicitly instructed them not to give undue offense towards them. James still hoped for a future union between all Reformation churches. The British delegates even asked that the Lutherans not be excluded from the title “Reformed,” since, they argued, the Lutherans began the Reformation.[22]

This information is fascinating for a number of reasons. It shows the breadth of the Reformed tradition, at least according to the British, as well as their understanding of the function of the Canons of Dort. Obviously if the success of removing a rejection held value, then it was understood that positions which were neither promoted nor condemned were allowable to be held by Reformed ministers. The interest in the Lutheran churches also shows that the British did not desire to use their confessions to mark off the limits of the Christian Church. They instead only wanted to condemn clear error and the precise points under dispute at the time.
Another angle at understanding where the British delegates at Dort fall within the larger Reformed spectrum is by noting the appearance of views similar to theirs in subsequent years. Many of the English Puritans promoted a broad view of the atonement, among them being Ussher, Baxter, Seaman, Arrowsmith, Preston, Marshall, Howe, Scudder, and Polhill. Curt Daniel has stated that one third of the delegates at the Westminster Assembly could be classified among the moderate position.[23] Perhaps most interesting of all, however, is the fact that such moderate views nearly obtained the status of the majority view among 19th century American theologians, the most well-known being, as mentioned before, R. L. Dabney, Charles Hodge, and William Shedd. With the larger lens of history, the British delegates at Dort, as well as the Bremenese, are well within the mainstream of Reformed orthodoxy.
One other point that should be noted is that the Canons of Dort never held confessional status over the English churches. The British delegates were sent by King James I, not by the Church of England, and thus served as private citizens. They gave their approval to the content of the Canons of Dort, however, their opinions, as found in the Collegiat Suffrage, include many more qualifications, creating a manuscript that is much larger than the Dutch Canons. The British were also asked to grant their approval to the Three Forms of Unity, which they did with certain significant reservations. The British clearly disagreed with the Dutch over polity, as well as the interpretation of Christ’s descent into hell in the Apostles’ Creed. The British also held to a stronger view of baptismal grace than the typical Dutch thinker, and they expressly noted their concern not to require certain formulations of the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness among subscriptional standards.[24] After returning to England, Samuel Ward stringently defended the decisions of Dort, all the while maintaining that the Church of England’s confessional documents had not been departed from and that they remained the rule of England’s faith.
This historical inquiry ought to instruct us now, living in the 21st century, about how to understand the theology of the Synod of Dort and its place in the larger Reformed tradition. I do not at all intent my thoughts as criticisms of Dort. On the contrary, as I study the historical complexity surrounding Dort, I grow in my appreciation of its balance and moderation. Contrary to many a foe, Dort does not represent a cold and excessive Calvinism. One will not find any one particular formulation of limited atonement at Dort. It is deliberately open, only rejecting the Arminian viewpoint. And of course, we will all have to finally admit that the acronym TULIP doesn’t even work in Dutch! The order of Dort does not begin with depravity and move into election and then on to the atonement. Dort’s order is: divine election from the fallen mass of humanity, Christ’s death, effectual calling, and perseverance. One will notice that the third and fourth head of doctrine are combined, leaving four main points. Without trying to insinuate any particular amount of agreement or disagreement, we still should familiarize ourselves with the fact that the Canons of Dort are not the same as the popular TULIP.
Dort is also one specific piece within the larger Reformed tradition. It does not itself dictate the fullest bounds of that tradition. As we have seen, it is often that case that Dort says less, rather than more, leaving many positions open for further dialogue. With this diversity in mind, we must also be careful not to plot certain trajectories and logical implications of the Canons of Dort. It may very well be the case that no single delegate present would have himself articulated the specific theses as they are in the final form. Instead, they worked together to produce a document that each could approve of, with varying amounts of personal qualifications.

In order to grow into mature Reformed thinkers, it ought to be one of our top priorities to become acquainted with this historical information. I have found myself quite surprised at what lies smack in the middle of my own tradition. Famous names, of which I’ve never heard, often sit on library shelves nearby. Entire schools of thought can be forgotten within a few generations, and the majority position of one century can become the minority position of the next. Learning to form our identities in light of the complexities of history is essential for maintaining the stabilities of our religious communities, and an eye towards the future is equally as essential for their well being. The easiest way to begin this process, if I may quote Reading Rainbow, is to take a look; it’s in a book!




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] Dabney, The Five Points of Calvinism (Harrisonburg: Sprinkle), 1.

[2] for instance Dabney, Lectures on Systematic Theology, pg. 521, Hodge, Systematic Theology Vol. 2, pg. 557-558, and Shedd, Dogmatic Theology supplement 6.2.7, pg. 758.

[3] The terms “high Calvinism” and “moderate Calvinism” are too broad and most certainly less than desirable. No one in the 16th and 17th century applied these terms to themselves, and objections can leveled as to the fairness of the descriptions. Nevertheless, these terms have become the most widely used to describe the two tendencies among absolute predestinarians. While often including many more theological issues, especially the free offer of the gospel, the divide is fundamentally over the way in which the atonement is limited. “High Calvinists” place the limit in the content of the punishment born by Christ at the cross insisting on only the special will of God toward the elect, whereas the “moderate Calvinists” allow for a general will of God toward all men, as well as the special will toward the elect, and typically place the limitation on God’s effectual calling and application of the cross-work of Christ.

[4] Anthony Milton, The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (Church of England Record Society: Boydell Press), pg. 92

[5] G. Michael Thomas, The Extend of the Atonement (Carlisle: Paternoster), pg. 136; John Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of Christ in An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians Vol. II (London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co.), pg. 356.

[6] Michael Hakkenberg, The Predestinarian Controversy in the Netherlands, 1600-1620 (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1989), pg. 37.

[7] Morris Fuller, The Life, Letters, and Writings of John Davenant (London: Methuen and Co.) pg. 66-72

[8] Peter White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pg. 159

[9] ibid pg. 191

[10] see Sixteenth Lord’s Day, Question 40, Part III. Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism trans. G. W. WIlliard (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed), pg. 221-225. Cf. Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, pg. 355.

[11]see Robert Letham, The Work of Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press), pg. 55; Hans Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic), pg. 69; White, Predestination, Policy, and Polemic, pg. 187.

[12]Thomas, pg. 149.

[13] Milton, pg. 324-325

[14] Fuller, pg. 83

[15] Fuller, pg. 85; Milton 200-202

[16] Fuller, pg. 85-89; Milton, pg. 195; White, pg. 187-188

[17] The full text can be found in Milton, pg. 226- 293

[18] Milton, pg. 201

[19] White, pg. 185

[20] ibid, pg. pg. 192

[21] quoted in White, pg. 198.

[22] Milton, pg. 327.

[23] Curt Daniel, http://www.gracemessenger.org/files/Daniel_Curt_History_and_Theology_of_Calvinism.pdf, pg. 75.

[24] see Balanquall’s notes on Session 148 of Dort and the British comments on Belgic Confession Article 23 found in Milton, pg. 328-329; 338.

The English Delegation to The Synod of Dordt

The English Delegation to The Synod of Dordt

From a study by Mr. Mark Shand of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia and student at the Protestant Reformed Seminary, Grand Rapids Michigan USA.

When mention is made of the national Synod of Dordrecht, the tendency for many is to associate that name with the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands during the early 17th century. To do so is certainly not incorrect, but it should be borne in mind that that Synod was in certain respects unique so far as the assemblies of Reformed churches are concerned. Unlike any of the other great Reformed assemblies, it gathered together representatives of virtually all of the Reformed churches in Europe. In that respect it stands alone and deserves a peculiar place in the history of the Reformed churches.

The divines who met at Dordt on the 13th November 1618 constituted a remarkable array of talent and background. The ranks of those who attended at Dort included fifty-six ministers and ruling elders from the Dutch churches, five Professors of Theology, and twenty-six foreign divines, as well as eighteen political commissioners who were not members of the Synod but who were to supervise the proceedings and report to the States-General. The foreign divines included representatives from the Reformed churches of Great Britain, the Palatinate, Hessia, Switzerland, Wetteravia, Geneva, Bremen, and Emden. Delegates from France were also invited, but were prevented from attending by their king.

Consequently, this Synod was unlike any other within the Reformed church world. As a Synod, it has enjoyed high praise. Richard Baxter places this Synod on the same footing as the Westminster Assembly of Divines. Speaking of the Westminster Assembly, Baxter observes:

"The Divines there Congregate were Men of Eminent Learning and Godliness, and Ministerial Abilities and Fidelity: and . . . as far as I am able to judge by the Information of all History of that kind, and by any other Evidences left to us, the Christian world, since the days of the Apostles, have never a Synod of more excellent Divines (taking one thing with another) than this Synod and the synod of Dort were." [1]

In even more effusive terms, William Cunningham asserts:

"The Synod of Dort, representing as it did almost all the Reformed Churches and containing a great proportion of theologians of the highest talents, learning and character, is entitled to a larger measure of respect and deference than any other council recorded in the history of the church." [2]

This is high praise indeed, coming as it does from a Scottish theologian who was wedded to the work of the Westminster Assembly.

The focus of our consideration is an examination of the contribution which the English contingent made to the Synod. Initially, four English divines were nominated by James I of England to assist in the deliberations of the Synod. They were George Carleton, then bishop of Llandaff and afterwards of Chichester, and a brother to Sir Dudley Carleton, the English ambassador at the Hague; Joseph Hall, afterwards bishop of Exeter and subsequently of Norwich; John Davenant, then the Lady Margaret professor at Cambridge and Master of Queen's, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, and Samuel Ward, then master of Sidney College, Cambridge. These delegates were subsequently joined by two others, Walter Balcanqual who was chaplain to the king and afterwards dean of Rochester, and Dr.Thomas Goad, Precentor of St. Paul's and Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury. As we shall note, Goad attended the Synod in place of Hall, due to the latter's illness which necessitated his return to England. [3]

It is interesting to note that Balcanqual was born and educated in Scotland. After graduating, he moved to Cambridge and was subsequently ordained in the Church of England. He became a royal chaplain and was appointed Master of the Savoy in 1617. He took his place in the Synod on 20th December 1618.

As is evident by their titles, each of the English delegates held prominent positions within the Church of England though they were relatively unknown outside of England prior to their attendance at Dort. The Synod served to enhance their international reputations. For example, following Dort, the Gallican churches wrote to the English delegates concerning a doctrinal issue in the following terms, "The opinion of the divines of England, the most celebrated in the whole Christian world, is requested on this controversy, as it appears that this might conduce not a little towards confirming the peace of the Reformed Church in France." [4] In particular, the reputation of Davenant was enhanced. He has subsequently been described as one of the remarkable divines of the 17th century [5] and has been hailed as the "Jewel of the Reformed churches" for his eminence at the Synod. [6] The most eminent of the English theologians to attend that Synod and one of the greatest names to have adorned the English church are also epitaphs which have been bestowed upon him. [7]

These are high commendations, considering the other illustrious divines whose lives dotted the ecclesiastical landscape of that century.

What contribution did these men make to the Synod? As noted, some have viewed their contribution as significant, while others have not been so generous in their praise. [8]

The British delegation, too, though highly esteemed at the Synod because of the friendly relationship at the time between the British king and the government of the Netherlands nevertheless was one of the weaker delegations at the synod . [9]

Invitations to attend the Synod were extended to various countries throughout 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 Queen Elisabeth 1st 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.

James I, partly for political motives and partly because of his love of theological controversies, complied with this request and selected the theologians identified previously. Gerard Brandt describes the decision of James I in the following terms:

"King James sent such Divines to the synod of Dort whom he knew to be zealous enough to condemn the Remonstrants, but he was not so much inclined to act in this manner by the light of his excellent understanding, as for reasons of state, for his excellency Prince Maurice (with whom that king was engaged in a strict alliance, and for whose person and power he very much interested himself) having put himself at the head of the ContraRemonstrant party he thought fit to contribute all he could towards the oppression of the weaker side and for corroborating the authority of a prince whose interest he had espoused; insomuch that this monarch was rather an enemy to the persons than to the principles of the Remonstrants." [10]

Prior to attending the Synod, the members of the English delegation were summoned before James I and Archbishop Abbot, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to receive specific instructions as to the approach which they were to adopt to the issues which were likely to be canvassed at the Synod. [11]

The instructions which they received 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." [12]

As will be observed, when controversy arose at the Synod, the King's instructions had the effect of restraining the individual English delegates from fully expressing their personal views in public.

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. As can be gleaned from the instructions which they received, a peaceable resolution with as little disputation was high on the English agenda. This emphasis was reflected in an address which Carleton delivered at a gathering of the States-General in the Hague on 6th November 1618, only a week prior to the commencement of the Synod. In the course of that speech, he pleaded:

"Our Lord and King, Christ Jesus, being about to go to His Father, and being desirous to leave his followers whom he loved, the greatest good that is to be found in this life, bequeathed them Peace. Neither could men desire a better gift from Heaven, nor the Angels declare better tidings from thence, than glory to God in the Highest and on earth peace." [13]

It should not be thought that the English delegation were completely open minded about the issues which were to be discussed at Dort. Apart from the instructions which they had received it is also chronicled that as early as 1616, Carleton had expressed his opposition to the views of Arminius. In writing to Dudley Carleton, he revealed that he had written a refutation of Arminius.

The Synod met for the first time on 13th November 1618. Thereafter, it met almost continuously until May 1619. Johannes Bogerman was elected President.

Shortly after the commencement of the Synod, Joseph Hall's health failed which lead to his eventual return to England. Hall explained his departure from the Synod in these words:

"By that time I had stayed some two months there, the unquietness in those garrison towns, working with the tender disposition of my body, brought me to such weakness as to disable me from attending the Synod: which yet, as I might, I forced myself unto; as wishing that my zeal could have discountenanced my infirmity." [14]

His only contribution of significance to the Synod was the delivery of a Latin sermon. He took as his text, Ecclesiastes 6:17 and in doing so urged the need for righteousness to be balanced with wisdom. In that sermon, he cautioned those present not to pry too far into the judgments of God. In that context, he observed that the issue of Predestination was one that was like the mathematical line, divisibilis in semper divisibilia. Consistent with the instructions of James I, peace was also a central theme of his message:

"By the awful name of almighty God, by the affectionate and gentle bosom of our common mother, by our own souls, and by the most holy bowels of our Saviour Jesus Christ, seek peace, brethren, enter into peace; and so compose yourselves, that setting aside all prejudice and party feeling and bad passion, we may all happily be joined in promoting the same peace". [15]

After having delivered the sermon, Hall notes that this was no sooner done:

"than my former complaint renewed upon me, and prevailed against all the remedies that the counsel of physicians could advise me unto; so as, after long strife, I was compelled to yield unto a retirement, for the time, to the Hague; to see if change of place and more careful attendance . . . might recover me.

But when, notwithstanding all means, my weakness increased so far, as that there was small likelihood left of so much strength remaining, as might bring me back to England, it pleased his Gracious Majesty, by our Noble Ambassador's solicitation to call me off; and to substitute a worthy Divine, Mr. Dr. Goade, in my unwillingly forsaken room." [16]

Hall's departure from Dort resulted in the suggestion by the Remonstrants that his return to England was occasioned by his sympathy for their position and that he found the proceedings of the Synod to be distasteful. [17] This appears unlikely given that Hall subsequently spoke of the Synod in the highest terms and was proud to wear the gold medallion presented to him by the States-General for his contribution to the Synod.

The Arminians did not arrive at Dort until early December 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 manoeuvres designed to delay the Synod in its work. These tactics were employed, possibly in the hope that time would bring a favourable 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] The manner of their dismissal caused a measure of consternation among the English delegation.

They were dismissed by Bogerman in these terms:

"With a lie you made your entrance into the Synod; with a lie you take your leave of it . . . Your actions have been full of fraud, equivocations, and deceit . . . But assure you the synod shall make known your pertinacity to the world; and know that the Belgic churches want not arena spiritualia, with which in time convenient, they will proceed against you." [20]

Balcanqual writing to the English ambassador in the Hague comments on their dismissal as follows:

"For the Dismission of the Remonstrants, since your Lordship is pleased to take notice of it, I hope I may without offence say that it was such, as certainly did the Synod much wrong . . . . For the delegates had their decree of Dismission written before they came into the Synod, yet our voices were asked, hoping it should have been answerable to their Decree: but finding it was otherwise, without so much as laying their heads together for consultation, they published a decree which they brought written with them into the Synod. On Monday the late acts of the Remonstrants' incredible obstinacy being read; . . . they were called in and dismissed with such a powdering speech as I doubt not but your Lordship hath heard with grief enough, I protest I am much afflicted when I think of it. For if the Remonstrants should write, that the President pronounced a sentence, which was not the sentence of the Synod, they should not lie." [21]

Notwithstanding the absence of the Remonstrants from the Synod, their doctrinal views were extracted from their published writings and dealt with under the five principal points which characterised their doctrine.

The procedure adopted by the Synod was that each foreign delegation constituted a separate committee. In respect of each issue that came before the Synod, the various committees were required to frame an individual judgment which they then brought back to the Synod and which became the response of the particular committee. Furthermore, each committee 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 actualised 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.

All the members of the Synod, including the English delegation, agreed that these propositions were unacceptable. [22] 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 at the Synod.

This issue also occasioned a divergence of views among the English delegation? [23] 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. 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? [24] Davenant felt so strongly about this issue that he declared that he would sooner cut off his hand than rescind any word of it? [25]

While the views of Davenant and Ward were opposed by the other English delegates, [26] 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 Carleton. 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 Bremen his mind, that it 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." [27]

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.

Ward received advice concerning the approach to be taken from James I, through an intermediary. With reference to the king, Ward was advised that he:

"likes very well of your media via, wishing you to hold the articles of the Church of England in any case for your parts . . . and his majesty wisheth heartily a happy and peaceable end of your meeting that the common adversary have not matter of insulting against us: that of the winning of the Lutherans if they could so be brought to hold the same, you say his majesty took special notice of and would to God it might be so brought to pass, but whatsoever so long as in your definitiones you keep formam sanorum verborum and rather by some general words as we find the scripture phrase often runneth give them occasion to think well of our doctrine than that by too particular and curious a restraint be still estranged from us." [28]

The formal response received from the English Ambassador was summarised by Hales in these terms:

"That before the Synodical resolution concerning Christ's death and the application of it to us, we stand upon it, to have those conclusions couched, in manner, and terms, as near as possibly may be, to those which were used in the primitive church by the fathers of that time against the Pelagians, and semi-Pelagians, and not in any new phrase of the modern age; and that the same may be as agreeable to the confessions of the Church of England, and other Reformed Churches and with as little distaste and umbrage to the Lutheran churches as may be." [29]

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 from their submission. 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." [30]

In their final form, the English Judicium comprised six propositions and three rejections of error, all of which were explained and defended. The first two positive statements reflected the attitudes of Carleton, Balcanqual and Goad. These emphasised 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. Compromise had raised its multifaceted and ugly head!

The interpretation to be placed on 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 Artic. 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." [31]

The stand taken by the English delegation lead 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." [32]

By way of explanation, Davenant observed:

"We had a special charge in our instructions to endeavour that positions be moderately laid down which may tend to the mitigation of heat on both sides, which we judge to be most necessary in this second article." [33]

He goes on to state:

"We verily think that the strictness of the Contra-Remonstrants in this second article is one chief reason which keepeth the Lutheran churches from joining with us. And we think that if way were given in this synod herein they would be the more easily brought to hold the doctrine of predestination according to the opinion of St. Augustine and the Church of England." [34]

While Davenant and Ward rejected Arminianism they maintained a view of the atonement which held that Christ in some respect had died for all. In this respect, the English delegation were in a clear minority. 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. Article 8 of the Second Head of Doctrine reads:

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.

This issue was the only one in which the English delegation differed significantly from the majority of the delegations.
[35] Following the completion of debate, the Synod appointed a committee of which Carleton was a member and that committee prepared draft Canons for the consideration of the whole Synod. The Canons were divided into five chapters dealing with the subjects of sovereign predestination, particular atonement, total depravity, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints. The Canons were adopted by the Synod and their approval was affirmed by the signatures of all the English delegates.

Following the Synod, the English delegates returned to England where they were graciously welcomed by the King. A job well done from the king's perspective. For their efforts, the majority of the delegates received prestigious appointments.

In conclusion, how can the contribution of the English divines be summarised? The role played by the English delegation at Dort was in many ways a moderating one. For example, on 22nd January 1619, Matthias Martinius, one of the Bremen delegates clashed with Gomarus on the issue of Christ's role in God's predestination of the elect. Hales reports the matter in this way:

"Martinius, as it seems, is somewhat favourable to some Tenets of the Remonstrants concerning Reprobation, the latitude of Christ's merit, the Salvation of Infants etc. and to bring him to some conformity was there a private meeting of the Foreign Divines upon Wednesday morning (the 23rd) in my Lord Bishop's Lodging in which thus much was obtained, that though he would not leave his conclusions, yet he promised moderation and temper in such manner that there should be no dissension in the synod by reason of any opinion of his." [36]

In that respect, the English delegation appears to have played an important role in the functioning of the Synod.

As regards their doctrinal position, for the most part they were orthodox, save for the views of Davenant and Ward in relation to the Second article. Without doubt, the views which they expressed in that regard were heterodox. As to whether one views the contribution by the English delegation in a positive light, probably depends on the weight that one gives to this issue.

Notwithstanding the doctrinal weaknesses of some of the English divines, it will always remain a fact that England did contribute to the international status of the Synod. However, the extent to which she contributed in a doctrinal sense will probably continue to be a moot point.

Footnotes
[1] Richard Baxter, Reliquiae Baxterianae, (London, 1696), Vol. I, p. 73.

[2] William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1967), p. 367. As will shortly be noted, the English contingent also embraced a Scot by the name of Walter Balcanqual. Nonetheless, for all intents and purposes, although born in Scotland, Balcanqual represented the Church of England and not the Church of Scotland. Hence the use of the term "English" to denominate this contingent or delegation.

[3] Cf. John Platt: lrenical Anglicans at the Synod of Dort, in Councils and Assemblies, ed. G.J. Gumming & Derek Baker. ( Cambridge University Press 1971) p. 235.

[4] John Davenant, On the Controversy Among the French Divines of the Reformed Church Concerning the Gracious and Saving Will of God Towards Sinful Men (London: Hamilton, Adams., 1832), p. 561.

[5] Daniel Neal, The History of the Puritans (Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1979), Vol. 2, p. 93.

[6] George Ella, Bishop John Davenant and the Death of Christ: A Vindication New Focus, August/September 1997, Vol. 2, No. 2, p. 12; Morris Fuller suggests that "none stood higher than [Davenant] did at the Synod of Dort". Furthermore, Fuller contends that from a theological point of view, Davenant "stood ihead and shoulders higher than any of his compeers thereat." The Life, Letters & Writings of John Davenant D.D. (Methuen & Co., London, 1897), p. 192; Neal records that, "Davenant behaved himself with great prudence and moderation during the course of the Synod. He was a quiet and peaceable prelate, humble and charitable, a strict observer of the Sabbath, an enemy of pomp and ceremony and luxury of the clergy. He had a great reputation in foreign parts for profound learning." Neal, Op. cit., p. 93.

[7] George Smeaton, The Apostles' Doctrine of the Atonement (Alpha Publications, Winoa Lake, Indiana, 1979), p. 542.

[8] Herman Hanko, The History of the Free Offer (Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches, Grandville, Michigan, 1989), p. 82. Hanko referring to John Davenant describes Davenant as being "one of the delegates from Great Britain to the famous Synod of Dort and was, along with his fellow delegates, among the weakest representatives present at that great assembly."

[9] Homer C Hoeksema, The Voice of Our Fathers (Reformed Free Publishing Association, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1980), p. 23.

[10] Brandt, Gerard. History of the Reformation in the Low Countries (New York: AMS Press, 1979), Vol. 3, p. 6.

[11] Fuller, Op. cit., pp. _ 75, 76.

[12] Ibid., p. 78. The veracity of this instruction as it pertains to the universality of Christ's redemptive work has been challenged. Cf. William Robert Godfrey, Tensions Within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618-1619 (California: Stanford University, 1974), p. 168n.

[13] Platt, Loc. cit., p. 234.

[14] Josiah Pratt, The Works of Joseph Hall Vol. 1, (Oxford 1837), p. X1.

[15] Pratt, Op. cit., Vol. 11, (Oxford 1837), p. 485.

[16] Ibid, Vol. 1, pp. xl, xli.

[17] Some support for the Remonstrant's assertion may be provided by Thomas Fuller's description of Hall's departure. "Thus returned Dr. Hall into his own country: since so recovered (not to say revived therein) that he hath gone over the graves of all his English colleagues there, (what cannot God and good air do) surviving in health at this day, three and thirty years after, may well with Jesse, go amongst men for an old man in these days." Thomas Fuller, The History of Britain (Oxford, 1845), p. 468.

[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] Cf. L.H. Wagenaar: Van Strijd En Overwinning referenced in Hendriksen: Commentary on 1 Timothy (BOT 1959) Page 96. Also c£ Homer C. Hoeksema, Standard Bearer Vol. 29 pp. 375-376.

[21] John Hales, Golden Remains of the Ever Memorable Mr. John Hales (London: Printed by Tho. Newcomb for Robert Pawlet, 1673), pp. 73, 74.

[22] The English delegation identified their differences with the Remonstrants in a letter which they wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury dated 21st 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." Hales, Op. cit., p. 185.

[23] Indications of the doctrinal positions of the English delegates can be gleaned from the reports sent from Dort to Sir Dudley Carleton. Carleton was the English special ambassador to the United Provinces. He initially received reports from his chaplain, John Hales and subsequently from Balcanqual.

[24] Neal, Op cit., Vol. 1, p. 467.

[25] Cf. Hales: Golden Remains ......etc.. etc. pages 577-578, and page 581.

[26] Hales : Op. cit. page 470 and page 577.

[27] Hales, Op. cit., p. 101.

[28] Ibid. pp. 184, 185.

[29] Ibid. p. 185.

[30] Ibid. pp. 130, 131.

[31] Ibid. p.188.

[32] Neal, Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 467.

[33] Hales, Op. cit., p. 190.

[34] Ibid.

[35] 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.

[36] Hales, Op. cit., p. 87.