The Synod of Dort: Historical, Theological, and Experiential Perspectives [1 ed.] 9783666540776, 9783525540770

Citation preview

Joel R. Beeke / Martin I. Klauber (eds.)

The Synod of Dort Historical, Theological, and Experiential Perspectives

Academic Studies

68

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Refo500 Academic Studies Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis

In co-operation with Christopher B. Brown (Boston), Günter Frank (Bretten), Bruce Gordon (New Haven), Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer (Bern), Tarald Rasmussen (Oslo), Violet Soen (Leuven), Zsombor Tóth (Budapest), Günther Wassilowsky (Frankfurt), Siegrid Westphal (Osnabrück)

Volume 68

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Joel R. Beeke / Martin I. Klauber (eds.)

The Synod of Dort Historical, Theological, and Experiential Perspectives

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: https://dnb.de.

© 2020, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting: le-tex publishing services GmbH, Leipzig

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2197-0165 ISBN 978-3-666-54077-6

Contents

David W. Hall Foreword ........................................................................................

7

Editorial Preface .............................................................................. 11 W. Robert Godfrey 1. The Synod of Dort and Strategic Thinking ..................................... 13 Historical Perspectives (with a focus on France) Martin I. Klauber 2. Theological Responses to the Synod of Dort in France .................... 27 Matthew Scott Harding 3. A Voice Among the Restricted French Delegates of Dort: Pierre du Moulin on Providence and Predestination ....................... 41 Dan Borvan 4. Pierre du Moulin’s Use of Scripture and Tradition in the Arminian Controversy ................................................................ 61 Theological Perspectives Greg A. Salazar 5. Defending Calvinism in England Before and After Dort .................. 75 R. Scott Clark 6. Seriously and Promiscuously: The Synod of Dort on the Free Offer of the Gospel .............................................................. 89 Michael Horton 7. Is Particular Redemption “Good News”? ....................................... 105

6

Contents

Donald Sinnema 8. Church and State Relations at the Synod of Dort (1618–1619) .......... 133 David B. McWilliams 9. Sacrosancta Synodus! Cornelius Van Til on Dort and Its Detractors ................................................................................ 149 Experiential Perspectives Charles Telfer 10. “The Holy Exercises of Piety” in the Canons of Dort and in Campegius Vitringa (1659–1722) as a Representative of the Nadere Reformatie ...................................................................... 163 Joel R. Beeke 11. The Canons of Dort’s Promotion of Reformed Pastoral, Experiential Preaching................................................................ 185 R.T. (Dolf) te Velde 12. Effective and Divine: The Role of the Holy Spirit in the Canons of Dort .......................................................................... 203 Conclusion Joel E. Kim 13. The Relevance of Dort for Today .................................................. 219 Editors and Contributors .................................................................. 233

David W. Hall

Foreword Dort’s Durability: From the Past, For the Future One occasionally hears the tired, tattered line that there is a world of difference between the early Reformation creedal symbols and the latter ones. Supposedly (although for any legends reading person, Richard Muller and others have surely put such urban legends to rest), the early Reformers were more flexible, less dogmatic, inclusive fellows, while the later Puritans were grumpy, sclerotic, and narrow. As one summary put it: the 1563 Heidelberg Catechism was the buoyant “springtime” of the Reformation, while less than a century later, the Westminster Confession was the weathered “autumn” of the Reformation. While such a case is difficult to make, let us momentarily hypothesize the correctness of that slogan. Should such narrowing and hardening have truly occurred, would the Synod of Dort, then, be the verdant “summer” or zenith of the maturing movement? This volume of fine essays attempts to make the case that the Dort consensus exhibits both a balanced and mature expression of the pristine Reformation, while also being an important bridge between the sixteenth century confessions and those from the seventeenth century. Most of these authors would stress the continuity between these various generations of symbols (including a foundation in antiquity), while obviously appreciating the differing contexts. Dort, however, is the lesser known sibling for many Anglophones. Situated in the Netherlands, it is even—at times, wrongly—thought to be a uniquely Dutch manifesto. That is hardly the truth. As W. Robert Godfrey and others make clear, Dort was the closest thing to an ecumenical Reformed council, in the opening decades of the seventeenth century. Its environment, to be sure, was provincially Dutch; however, with representatives and influence from England, Scotland, Geneva itself (e.g., Giovanni Diodati), France, and elsewhere, it was safely guarded from a damning provincialism. Such catholic composition may be one key to its durability. The synod met during 1618–1619 and likely provided the new mold for such assemblies (as later at Westminster, 1643–1649). The early Reformed church placed large emphasis on ecumenical agreement with other Protestants, perhaps modeling this ethos after Acts 15. To be sure, earlier Colloquies (Augsburg, Poissy, Paris, Emden, the English Presbytery in 1596, etc.) had taken place and

8

David W. Hall

were respected. Yet, when this synod gathered at a Dutch locale, they sought to clarify (even polemically, as needed) and fortify the belief system of the Reformation, and they included other mature voices. Similarly, this volume adds the voices of these modern contributors to many others from a commemorative cycle. Within these pages, readers learn about the political context, the theological issues at stake, key personalities at the synod, ignored emphases (such as the work of the Holy Spirit—to the surprise of many who are unacquainted with the sources), and the role of preaching and piety—interspersed also with appropriate critiques. All in all, one has under this single cover both a sturdy introduction to a peak performance of Reformed orthodoxy and a proper appreciation, memorializing an important theological and pastoral benchmark. A different commemoration for another doctrinal symbol was celebrated in the spirit commended by these essays: “The end of this anniversary is not selfglorification and an ostentatious parade of denominationalism. Nay, God’s hand is in it, and it means remembrance, stimulus, inspiration, life from the dead, and a glorious flood of light on some of the dark problems of history.”1 William Symington also put commemorations like this anthology in good perspective: We would not be chargeable with the enormous wickedness of forgetting that men are only what God makes them, and that to Him all the glory ... is to be ascribed. But we are, at the same time, unable to see wherein the bestowment of a due need of praise on the memory of such ... contravenes any maxim of sound morality, or any dictate of inspiration. We ... have no hesitation in attempting to awaken, in the men of the present generation, sentiments of admiration and gratitude for the memory of worthies to whom all are so deeply indebted. … While we claim and exercise the right of bringing these, like all other human productions, to the infallible touchstone of Revelation, ... we cannot but cherish the hope that the present commemoration, ... may be regarded as symptomatic at once of a growing attachment to the sentiments ... and of an enlightened determination to maintain them more firmly and diffuse them more extensively than ever.2

1 Addresses at the Celebration of the Two Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, ed. William Henry Roberts (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1898), 274. 2 William Symington, “Historical Sketch of the Westminster Assembly of Divines,” in Commemoration of the Bicentenary of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (Glasgow, 1843), 69, 71.

Foreword

We may even find this appreciation of memorializing such grand synods to be helpful: In such commemorations there is a great moral element. Sometimes it is good to get free from the narrow environments of the immediate present and ascend some eminence which commands a view of ways long since trodden, and then, from what is taught in the review, learn to forecast the ever-widening way of the future. It is only by such studies that we catch the spirit of the great historic eras which have been potent in shaping the institutions of our own times. It is only when we can transport ourselves to the distant past and evoke from its obscurity the forms of its heroic men; it is only when we acquaint ourselves with the errors they combated, the difficulties they surmounted, the hardships they endured, that we can fully comprehend the character of the men who thus toiled and suffered, or appreciate the value.3

The essays that follow, individually and collectively, target these ends and hope to serve the churches in the future as well as this particular doctrinal symbol that has resiliently served us already.

3 Memorial Volume of the Westminster Assembly, 1647–1897, ed. Francis Beattie et al. (Richmond, Va.: The Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1897), 189.

9

Editorial Preface The Synod of Dort was an international conference of Reformed leaders held from November 13, 1618, to May 29, 1619, in the town of Dordrecht in the Netherlands. The year 2019, therefore, marked the 400th anniversary of its conclusion. It is famous for its so-called five Heads of responses with corresponding rejections of errors, which together served as a refutation of the five Remonstrances of the followers of Arminius on the nature of divine grace and the perseverance of believers into glory. As an international Synod, Dort had a significant impact on the definition of Reformed orthodoxy for decades and centuries to come. In countries such as France, the Canons of Dort served as an essential boundary for Reformed orthodoxy and all pastors had to swear allegiance to them. Despite its tremendous influence, the decisions of Dort remain a mystery to many today and are subject to stereotypes ranging from an extreme form of divine determinism to the hijacking of the pure theology of Calvin. This volume seeks to shed light on various aspects of the Synod of Dort in order to inform the contemporary reader about its proper historical, theological, and experiential context. Some of the leading scholars of postReformation Reformed thought and the Synod have contributed essays to this work. Most of these chapters were originally delivered as papers either at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Denver in November 2018 or at the Westminster Seminary California Annual Conference held in January 2019. It should be noted that the vast majority of contributors to this volume come from a Reformed perspective and generally portray how many Reformed Christians have responded to the Synod of Dort throughout the centuries. A look at how those from an Arminian or non-Reformed position have viewed the same events would, of course, yield a very different narrative. However, the editors and contributors have striven to focus on the historical and theological development of interactions with Dort rather than on their own, personal positions. The book is divided into three major sections designed to provide a more thorough overall perspective on the synod. The first section looks at the reception of the Canons of Dort among the Reformed churches in France where they were accepted and enforced starting with the National Synod of Alais in 1620. These chapters dig deeper into key individuals, such as Pierre du Moulin, who led the way for the Canons of Dort to be enforced as a test for orthodoxy. However, there were some internal questions, concerns, and even objections to the canons within France which are detailed in these chapters.

12

Editorial Preface

The second section homes in on the theology of Dort with particular attention to the doctrines of election and the nature of the atonement, both of which were at the heart of theological discussions at the synod. This section also includes an important chapter on the relationship between church and state, and some of the unique political challenges that Reformed churches faced in the Netherlands. Finally, the third major section looks at how believers attempted to apply the theology of Dort to their daily lives and devotion to Christ. The authors here attempt to show how the delegates at Dort attempted to combine both piety and theological orthodoxy. Special attention is given to the role of the Holy Spirit as an essential aspect of the synod. These chapters indicate that this was not merely a theological conference, but one that had experiential and practical implications as well. The book concludes with a chapter on the usefulness of Dort for many believers today, even if they have never heard of the Synod of Dort at all. The hope is that this volume will raise awareness of the importance of Dort both in history and for individuals and churches today.

W. Robert Godfrey

1.

The Synod of Dort and Strategic Thinking

When the Synod of Dort gathered in November 1618, the confessional Calvinists had already won the critical ecclesiastical and political battles. Their opponents—known in their day as Remonstrants and in the present day as Arminians—had labored diligently but failed to prevent a national synod from meeting. The Arminians had challenged the theology embedded in the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, the official doctrinal statements of the Dutch Reformed Church. They recognized that they were a small minority of the ministers and members of the church and that the disciplinary authority of the broader assemblies of the church would act against them if given a chance. They had sought support and protection from political authorities. Their identity as Remonstrants had come from the petition they had presented to the civil government—the Remonstrance of 1610—appealing for the government to tolerate and protect their theological views. But over time that support collapsed and the political leadership authorized the calling of the national synod to judge the Arminian theology. The delegates to the Synod, not only from the local synods of the Dutch Reformed Church but also from most of the Reformed churches of Europe, knew that their primary responsibility was to answer and refute the theology of the Arminians. They also clearly wanted to show that true Calvinist theology was vital and contributed to pious Christian living. They expressed their doctrine and piety in the Canons of Dort (CD). That piety and theology have been carefully and helpfully studied through the years by both champions and critics of the Synod.1 What has not been so carefully considered are the strategic concerns that helped shape the writing of the canons. To raise this matter is not to suggest 1 Recent years have seen something of a renewal of scholarly interest in the Synod of Dort: Donald Sinnema, Christian Moser, and Herman J. Selderhuis, eds., Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618–1619) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015); Aza Goudriaan and F. A. van Lieburg, Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (Leiden: Brill, 2011); Herman J. Selderhuis, ed., Handbook of Dutch Church History (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015); W. Robert Godfrey, Saving the Reformation: The Pastoral Theology of the Canons of Dort (Orlando: Reformation Trust, 2019); Daniel Hyde, Grace Worth Fighting For: Recapturing the Vision of God’s Grace in the Canons of Dort (Lincoln, Neb.: The Davenant Institute, 2019); Jon D. Payne and Sebastian Heck, eds., A Faith Worth Defending: The Synod of Dort’s Enduring Heritage (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2019).

14

W. Robert Godfrey

that the Reformed delegates were media savvy in a modern sense or had public relations experts advising them. It is to suggest that the delegates were aware of various audiences that would read their canons and determined to make those canons as persuasive as possible to those audiences. At least four audiences would have been in the minds of the synodical delegates as they did their work at Dort. The first was the community of strong Reformed believers whom the synod wanted to confirm in its faith. The second audience was those undecided observers whom the synod wanted to convince through its work. The third was the Arminian critics whose various challenges and criticisms the synod wanted to refute. The fourth audience was the political leadership who supported orthodox theology. The Arminians had always, of course, also operated strategically as well as theologically. Their strategy in the church and in relation to the civil government had been to support a strongly Erastian church polity. Such a polity was understandably attractive to political leaders as an increase in their power with respect to the church. Civil magistrates in the Netherlands—and indeed throughout Europe—wanted to keep the church largely under state control. The Arminians supported an Erastian polity in order to weaken the Calvinist push for a more independent synodical church authority where opportunities for disciplining the Arminians would be greater. The Arminian strategy was not just to present their views at a sophisticated academic level and to gain support from the political elite, but also to find ways to weaken the appeal of Calvinism to common people in the churches. To that end, they attacked Calvinism for undermining the fairness and goodness of God, for eliminating human freedom, and for denying the availability of grace.2 They further portrayed Calvinism as a religion that necessarily led to gloom, fear, and uncertainty and that stood against fundamentals of historic Christianity. One can see an element of that strategy in their Remonstrance of 1610. The document, prepared a year after the death of Arminius and signed by forty-two of his ministerial supporters, was not intended to be a public document. The strategy there in the first place was to sound as close to traditional Reformed theology as possible while subtly redefining terms so that the magistrates would be attracted to their position. This Remonstrance summarized their views in five points on election, atonement, sin, grace, and perseverance. After this document was made public, much of the subsequent debate continued to be in terms of these five topics. In the years between the Remonstrance and the Synod, the

2 These critiques of Calvinism are common to critiques of Augustinian theologies through the centuries.

The Synod of Dort and Strategic Thinking

Arminian views (there was significant diversity among the Arminians) became less subtle and some of them became quite radical. The delegates to the Synod of Dort understood that Arminian challenge and strategy clearly. That history shaped the decision of the Synod on how to write the canons. They retained the division of the topics in five points. Each of the topics—commonly called heads of doctrine—was presented in several positive articles stating the orthodox Reformed teaching, followed by the statement and refutation of various Arminian errors. The canons as a whole were written in a “popular” form, that is to say, for the people of the church, rather than for academics. The Calvinists certainly had presented through the years before the synod many detailed and carefully argued theological responses to the Arminians. They were theologically clear in presenting their views in the canons, but there they also sought to be persuasive strategically. We can see that in—as is obviously appropriate—five areas: 1) the general character of the canons, 2) the canons’ appeal to authority, 3) some of the canons’ topics, 4) the canons’ epithets used in reference to the Arminians, and 5) the canons’ specific language choices. None of these observations about strategy imply that what is said or how it is said is done insincerely or cynically simply in the interests of some strategic success. But as those educated in rhetoric as taught by Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian, they knew how to think about persuasion. In this chapter, we will consider the Dortian divines’ strategy from several perspectives. The Character of the Canons: Preface and Catholicity The strategic character of the canons can begin to be seen in the Preface which the synod prepared for the canons. The synod approved the canons and their Conclusion on April 23, 1619. Two days later it adopted a Preface to the canons as a brief historical and theological introduction to the need for the synod and its work. This Preface has seldom been reprinted and is not regarded as part of the official confessional teaching of the Synod.3 Still, it is quite illuminating about the mind of the Synod, including its strategic efforts to be persuasive. This Preface runs to about eleven hundred words. Throughout it maintains a strong—at times quite emotional—appeal for support of the Synod’s work. It introduces well the points about strategy made in this study. The Preface begins with the words: “Among the many comforts which our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ gave to his church militant in its troubled sojourn, 3 Quotations from the Preface and from the canons are from a new translation in Godfrey, Saving the Reformation, 27–30, 35–77.

15

16

W. Robert Godfrey

one in particular is rightly celebrated.” The theme of comfort introduced immediately here was very dear to Reformed people who had been nurtured on the Heidelberg Catechism with its opening question, “What is your only comfort in life and in death?” The Preface underscores that Christians look to Christ in their troubles for this comfort. The particular promise, and comfort to which the synod then turns is the promise “I am with you always even until the end of the age.” This “delightful promise” accompanies the church through its whole history in all its difficulties. The church needs this comfort, declares the Preface, not only in the face of violent persecution and terrible heresies, but also in the face of “the hidden cunning of seducers.” The presence of Christ had protected his church from all these dangers in all ages. The language here of the hidden cunning of seducers is strong and clearly directed at the Arminians. The next point made is that Christ has always used means to accomplish this protection. The first means mentioned is this: “Clear proof of this truth stands in the histories of the pious emperors, kings, and princes, whom the Son of God so many times has raised up for the protection of his church.” Here and later in this Preface the cajoling of the civil magistrate is very evident, praising them for their central, divinely appointed role in protecting the church. The canons outlined that Christ used these pious political leaders to provide for “the remedies of holy synods when contending with false teachers.” Here, of course, the Preface looks back to the first ecumenical council in Nicaea in 325, called by the Emperor Constantine, and to all the work of Christian civil magistrates in the centuries thereafter. These synods stood for the truth, opposed those they labeled ministers of Satan, suppressed error and discord, “preserved the church in the harmony of pure religion, and transmitted sound worship to posterity undiminished.” The great blessings of truth, harmony, and faithful worship are the fruit of Christ’s work through holy synods. Here is strong, strategic praise of the value of synods. They argued that what Christ did through the whole history of the church, he has done most recently in the Netherlands. He liberated the church “from the tyranny of the Roman Antichrist and the horrible papal idolatry,” protected it through the long civil war, and caused it to flourish to “the joy of the whole Reformed world.” Here the Preface links the Synod of Dort to the great struggle of the Dutch against tyranny and idolatry and implicitly shows it as part of the flourishing of the Reformed church and the Dutch republic. The Preface is explicit in stating that trouble came into the church through the person of Arminius and his followers, the Remonstrants: “this most flourishing church would have been consumed in the horrible fire of these dissensions and

The Synod of Dort and Strategic Thinking

schisms unless the compassion of our Savior had intervened.”4 The Arminians had ignited a conflagration threatening the church. The Preface then moves to this remarkable confession: “Blessed forever be the Lord, who after he had hidden his face for a moment from us (who had provoked his wrath and indignation in many ways), has shown the whole world that he does not forget his covenant and does not scorn the sighing of his people.” The synod acknowledged humbly—though not specifically—that the church had deserved the wrath of God for its sins. The Preface then returns to the theme of the necessary help of civil magistrates. When all seemed hopeless God moved the States General and Maurits, the Prince of Orange, “to use those legitimate means which the Apostles themselves practiced,” namely, the calling of a synod. Mention is also made of other Europeans princes who helped, especially King James of Great Britain.5 By this synod “true doctrine [was] established and false doctrine rejected, and—by the divine blessing—harmony, peace, and tranquility...restored to the Dutch churches.” The synod had been preceded by gatherings for prayer and fasting and the synod committed itself by a sacred oath to judge matters only by the Word of God. The Preface finally gives a summary of the Synod’s judgment at the end of its work: “through the singular grace of God, with the greatest diligence, faith, and conscience, this synod achieved the absolute consensus of all and each member, to the glory of God. So, for the integrity of the truth of salvation, the tranquility of consciences, and the peace of well-being of the Dutch church…” Here at the end, as throughout, the Preface strategically appeals to the reader to recognize the hand of God and the sincere piety of the Reformed in the work of the Synod. It is both sincere and clever. The Catholicity of the Canons Moving beyond the Preface, the synod prepared the canons proper. It decided that each head of doctrine would begin with a catholic statement of doctrine, that is, a statement of doctrine with which Roman Catholics and Lutherans as well as Reformed Christians would agree. The intent was to show strategically

4 Arminius and the Remonstrants are referred to by name in the Preface, but in the canons, they are never referred to by name. 5 Although at the time James was King James I of England and King James VI of Scotland, his kingship and his realm are always referred to in Dort’s documents as Great Britain.

17

18

W. Robert Godfrey

that Reformed convictions were not novel or sectarian, but flowed properly out of common, catholic teaching.6 Beyond that general approach of grounding its theology in catholic truth, the canons at times are explicit in identifying with ancient, catholic doctrine. In head III/IV, rejection 3, the tables are turned on the Arminians and they are accused of “novelty.” This kind of claim is reiterated in head III/IV, rejection 6, where the Arminian doctrine is declared to be “repugnant to the continual practice of the church.” Again, in head III/IV, rejection 9, the synod judges that the Arminian position had been “condemned long ago by the ancient church.” In another expression, the synod rejected the Arminian position as “against the perpetual consensus of evangelical doctrine” (V, rej. 2). Appeal to Authority The Canons of Dort make clear that the Scriptures alone are the authority on which Reformed theology rests. Neither tradition nor logic determines true doctrine. Reformed theology is derived from the Bible alone. As the Reformation began with the Scriptures as the only ultimate authority, so the Synod of Dort was determined to continue. In the very first article of the first head of doctrine, after stating the doctrine of the fall of all humans in Adam, the canons continue: “The Apostle teaches this: ‘The whole world is guilty under the condemnation of God’; ‘all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God’; and ‘the wages of sin is death’ (Rom. 3:19, 23; 6:23).” Here the point is made subtly but strategically that this point of doctrine and all subsequent points of doctrine are derived from the Bible alone. The Scriptures are not quoted too frequently in the positive articles of the various heads of doctrine. The positive statements of doctrine stand most of the time in their inherent simplicity, clarity, and cogency. By contrast in the rejection of errors the Scriptures are quoted in most of the articles and often without comment, as if to say that it is utterly obvious that the Calvinists have simply taught what the Bible teaches. Topics While the topics addressed by the synod were set by the theological debates of the years before the Synod, some of the topics in particular were shaped 6 For a full discussion, see W. Robert Godfrey, “Popular and Catholic: The Modus Docendi in the Synod of Dordt,” in Goudriaan, Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (Leiden: Brill, 2011).

The Synod of Dort and Strategic Thinking

by strategic as well as theological considerations. In this section, five specific topics will be considered: 1) infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism, 2) the uses of the means of grace, 3) election and worthiness, 4) assurance, and 5) the salvation of infants. Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism From the beginning of the theological controversies in the Netherlands, Arminius had particularly and viciously attacked supralapsarianism.7 He had kept these attacks private until 1608 when he finally expressed them openly in his “Declaration of Sentiments.” This attack was in part a strategy to try to set infralapsarian Calvinists against supralapsarianian Calvinists, in the hope that if the Calvinists fell to fighting among themselves, they might have less time and energy to oppose the Arminians. The Remonstrants tried this tactic again at the synod and again had no success. The canons do not address the differences between infralapsarians and supralapsarians directly, but stated the doctrine of election in such a way that both sides could easily endorse it. The canons approach election beginning with the human condition and moving from there to the divine decree. This approach is most congenial to infralapsarianism, but poses no problem for supralapsarians. The Calvinist strategy was to treat their divergent opinions as very much secondary in importance and entirely tolerable within the bounds of Calvinist orthodoxy. The Calvinists accomplished this by simply not mentioning it explicitly. The Uses of the Means of Grace If God in eternity has decreed some individuals to eternal life and if that decree must be irresistibly carried out, what real value and effect can the ministry of the church, its preaching, sacraments, prayers, and discipline, actually have? Since Christians live out their lives in the church, any theology must show the actual importance of the church. The canons strongly asserted the importance of the church and the means of grace, not just at the beginning of the Christian life but throughout it. In each of the heads of doctrine the importance of the means of grace are declared. The fullest statement explaining the Reformed understanding of the means of grace is found in head III/IV, article 17. There the canons state that God works through the means he has appointed and requires that Christians use them. This linkage was key to the strength, centrality, and health of the church in Reformed Christianity.

7 For an expanded discussion of this point, see Godfrey, Saving the Reformation, Appendix 1: “Arminius: A New Look.”

19

20

W. Robert Godfrey

Election and Worthiness One of the essential Christian virtues is humility. That virtue is not unique to the Reformed, but is a great virtue in nearly every form of Christianity. The Calvinists rightly sensed that the Arminian theology necessarily undermined humility, positing a greater worthiness in those who responded to God’s grace than in those who rejected it. To show that the Arminians have a theology that undermines humility in a basic way is a clever strategy. This subject is briefly introduced in head I, article 7: “Those chosen were neither better nor more worthy than others, but were like others fallen into the common human misery.” The issue of worthiness is expanded on in the rejections of errors. In head I, rejection 5, the Arminian error is summarized in part: “It [election] becomes complete and decisive on the basis of final perseverance of foreseen faith, repentance, holiness, and piety. This is the gracious and evangelical worthiness, on account of which he who is elect is more worthy than he who is not elect.” The Calvinists reply simply that such “teaching is repugnant to the whole Scripture.” In head I, rejection 9, this error is sharply rejected as contrary to Moses and Christ: “The reason God sends his Gospel to one people rather than to another is not merely and solely the good pleasure of God, but because one people is better and more worthy than another people to whom the Gospel is not communicated.” If Europeans—including Calvinists—had really embraced this rejection, the history of colonialism might have been very different. Assurance In the Remonstrance of 1610 the Arminians had expressed uncertainty about the Reformed doctrine of perseverance. The claim there that they needed more time to study this matter was a strategy to gain time and sympathy. Many among the Reformed Christians believed it was clearly disingenuous. Since the days of Calvin, the doctrine of perseverance had been the clear and forceful teaching of the Reformed. It is not surprising then that the canons clearly reiterate this teaching in its fifth head of doctrine. What may be somewhat surprising is that after eight articles on perseverance, the fifth head of doctrine turns in articles 9–13 to the subject of the assurance, or the certainty, of salvation and perseverance. The theology and piety of the canons in its teaching on assurance is stated clearly and helpfully presented there. It also has an important strategic function. The Reformed teaching on perseverance is foundational to the Reformed teaching that a Christian can and should have confidence, not just in being presently in a state of salvation, but in remaining in that state for all of life. Here is a great comfort and joy for any Christian: saved now means saved forever. The strategic significance

The Synod of Dort and Strategic Thinking

of pressing this Calvinist doctrine against the gloomy and fearful picture of Calvinism painted by the Arminians is obvious. Head V, article 15, rightly celebrates perseverance and assurance as glorifying God and comforting pious souls. Interestingly, the only point in the canons in which the Arminians are charged with papist errors is in relation to assurance in head V, rejection 5. The Jesuit theologian Robert Bellarmine had labeled this doctrine of the Calvinists the greatest heresy of the Reformation. But the synod saw this teaching as a great comfort and encouragement for the people of God. The Salvation of Infants One of the most powerful strategic arguments of the Arminians—already stated in Remonstrance of 1610—was that the Calvinistic doctrine was a threat to children, especially the children of good Christians. This issue was very important theologically, reflecting the relationship between election and covenant. The Calvinists rejected the Arminian charge very clearly already in their CounterRemonstrance of 1611. The issue was still volatile enough that the synod gave one of its positive articles to it in the first head of doctrine: “We are to judge the will of God from his Word. The Word testifies that the children of the faithful are holy, not by nature, but as a benefit of God’s gracious covenant. These children together with their parents are included in this covenant. Therefore, pious parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy” (CD I, 17). The Calvinists returned to this topic using the particularly emotional language the Arminians had used against them in the Conclusion of the canons. The Conclusion adamantly rejects among the “false claims” made against Reformed teaching that “Many infants of the faithful are ripped innocent from the breasts of their mothers and tyrannically thrown into hell so that neither baptism nor the prayers of the church at their baptism help them.” Almost every word of the false claim is emotionally loaded: “many,” “ripped,” “innocent,” “breasts of their mothers,” “tyrannically,” etc. Beyond labeling the claim false, the Conclusion did not respond to it. Its response is simply what it said in head I, article 17, insisting on the covenantal holiness, election, and salvation of these children of godly parents who die in infancy. Epithets The synod interestingly did not give their theological opponents as a group any identifying label in the canons. They are never called Arminians or Remon-

21

22

W. Robert Godfrey

strants. This may reflect in part that their opponents were not entirely united and sometimes contradicted each other. The synod is content simply to reject the specific errors taught. The canons do, however, at times label these false teachers and errors with the names of well-known heretics and heresies, always in the section of the canons known as the rejection of errors. By far the most frequent epithet used by the synod is that of Pelagian. The errors of Pelagius, the fifth-century opponent of Augustine, had long stood condemned in the western church. Successfully to attach the label of Pelagian to the Arminians was to show that they had embraced long rejected errors. This charge is contained in the following articles: In head I, rejection 4, the Arminian teaching that sinners must use their natural abilities to dispose themselves to election is judged: “These things savor of Pelagius.” In head II, rejection 3, the synod rejects the teaching that Christ’s death only makes it possible for the Father to establish new conditions, including the use of free will, for human salvation, declaring that in this teaching “They recall the Pelagian error from hell.” In head II, rejection 6, the synod rejects the teaching that humans must use their free will to respond to and receive the mercy offered to all, as “the pernicious poison of Pelagianism.” In head III/IV, rejection 7, the synod labels as “entirely Pelagian” the Arminian teaching that moral persuasion is the only way in which grace works in the conversion of sinners. In head III/IV, rejection 9, the Arminian teaching that grace and free will must work together cooperatively for conversion receives this judgment: “This teaching of the Pelagians was condemned long ago by the ancient church.” In head V, rejection 2, the synod labeled as “obvious Pelagianism” the Arminian doctrine that the faithful have all the powers they need to do their duty so that they will persevere in grace. Two other epithets are used one time each. As has been noted before, one is the label “papists” in head V, rejection 5, which is applied to those who teach that there can be no certainty of future perseverance apart from special revelation. (In a sense it is strange that this label is not used more often since it was often used in Dutch Reformed writings before the Synod.) The other label is applied to those who teach that an imperfect faith is accepted by God as earning justification. Of them, head II, rejection 4 states, “They teach, like the impious Socinus, a new and strange justification before God, against the consensus of the whole church.” Socinus was a notorious figure, denying the full divinity of Christ and rejecting an orthodox view of the work of Christ. Such a charge was serious indeed. All of these labels were very sincerely meant to identify the errors of Arminianism. But they were also strategically clever to make clear how serious and destructive those errors were.

The Synod of Dort and Strategic Thinking

Specific Language The specific words selected to express the teaching of the synod were carefully chosen to carry the truth, but also to carry strategic emotional persuasion. One can see this in phrases, nouns, and adjectives used in the canons. In what follows is just a sample of the language which is at times winsome, and at times strongly accusative. Phrases Consider the emotional character of these phrases and the appeal they make to the reader: “most joyful news” (I, 3), in reference to the preaching of the gospel of salvation in the life and death of Jesus; “graciously softens” (I, 6), in reference to God’s work in the hearts of the elect; “inexpressible comfort” (I, 6), in reference to the meaning of election for the “holy and pious”;8 “spiritual joy and holy satisfaction” (I, 12), in reference to the reaction of the elect on seeing the fruit of election in themselves; “absurd to make certainty uncertain” (I, rej. 7)—a clever, memorable, ridiculing response to the Arminian teaching that the certainty possible in this life is mutable; “supremely merciful” (II, 1), highlighting the profound, genuine mercy to be found in God (linked to “supremely just”); “immense mercy” (II, 2), in reference to the source of God’s decision to give Jesus to save sinners; “most valuable death” (II, 8), highlighting the character of the death of Jesus, whose death has a “living and saving efficacy” because that death is not mechanical but living and actually saving; and “sweetly and powerfully moves” (III/IV, 16), in reference to how grace operates to change the human will, again stressing that it is not mechanical or oppressive. Nouns and Adjectives More briefly, one can think of the strategic power simply of certain nouns and adjectives. For example, the use of the noun “multitude” in I, 7. The point here is that the number of the elect are a multitude, stressing that the elect are not a small, or insignificant number. Or consider the adjective “pernicious” used (I, rej. 3; II, rej. 6). The adjective labels as very harmful, indeed very destructive, first the Arminian error about the purpose of God and the meaning of the death of Christ, and second the serious Arminian misuse of the distinction between

8 The theme of comfort recurs several times with the implication that, if you do not find comfort in election, then you are not pious and holy. Other occurrences include: “lively comfort” (I, 14), in reference to comfort from election that lives in the hearts and experience of God’s people; “solid comfort” (V, 10 and V, rej. 5), in reference to the assurance that the elect will persevere; “all comfort” (V, 11), in reference to the description of the character of the Father in his relationships with the elect.

23

24

W. Robert Godfrey

accomplishing and applying. On the positive side, the adjective “infinite” (II, 3) highlighted the immense, limitless greatness of the value of the death of Christ. Conclusion The tone and approach of the Preface, the canons, and the Conclusion show the triumphant Calvinists at their best. They were humble and reasonable and concerned for Christ, the truth, and the souls of sinners. No doubt, all of those sentiments were genuine. They were, however, also very strategically clever and winsome. Being strategic is certainly legitimate and wise. It is also strategic today in this four-hundredth anniversary year to notice and appreciate and perhaps appropriate this strategic reality.

Historical Perspectives (with a focus on France)

Martin I. Klauber

2.

Theological Responses to the Synod of Dort in France

The Synod of Dort was an international conference of Reformed leaders held in 1618–1619 in the Netherlands. The year 2018 marked the 400th anniversary of the Synod of Dort’s inauguration on November 13. It is famous for its so-called Five Points of Calvinism which were a refutation of the Five Remonstrances of the followers of Arminius on the nature of divine grace and the perseverance of believers into glory. The French Reformed churches played an essential role in this international synod, which is ironic because the French representatives did not even attend. For the most part, they eagerly approved the Canons of Dort, with a few notable exceptions. The Reformed churches of France designated four delegates who were to participate in the Synod, including Pierre du Moulin, probably its most prestigious figure, who was at that time one of the pastors at the large and influential Reformed church in Charenton just outside of Paris. Also included was André Rivet, who was Du Moulin’s brother-in-law, chaplain of the Duke of La Trémouille, as well as a pastor. The two other delegates were Daniel Chamier, pastor and professor at Montauban and Jean Chauve, the pastor at Sommières in southern France. The latter two were on their way to the synod and made it as far as Geneva when they received word that King Louis XIII had issued an order forbidding the French delegates to participate, in part, because he feared the foreign influence among his subjects. Scholars have speculated whether there were other reasons for the King’s refusal to allow them to attend. Karin Maag argues that the real issues were mainly political, having to do with the relationship between France and the Netherlands. In 1613, the ambassador from the States General to France, François d’Aerssen, had been kicked out of the country for allegedly spying, among other complaints. When he returned to the Netherlands, he became involved in political intrigue, siding with Maurice of Nassau against Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, a close ally of the French king, even impugning the character of the latter, claiming that he was in favor of French control over the United Provinces.1 The members of the synod left four chairs empty at its meetings to honor the faithfulness of the French delegates who were not allowed to attend. The French theologians were able, however, to provide their input to the synod in 1 Karin Maag, “Impact amid Absence: The Synod of Dordt and the French Huguenots,” In die Skriflig (July, 2018), a2340.

28

Martin I. Klauber

writing. The French influence can be seen, in part, by the fact that the synod had its Latin decrees translated into both Dutch and French, but significantly not into English.2 The key figure in the adoption of the Canons of Dort in France was none other than Pierre du Moulin, whose life spanned the generations of the Wars of Religion and the Edict of Nantes. He is typically seen as a bastion of conservative orthodoxy, even as a leader in the development of the Reformed scholastic movement and an ardent opponent of the Remonstrants. He was also an active controversialist, and his son reported an often-told story that at the dinner table, a guest commented to Cardinal Jacques-Davy du Perron that “Du Moulin was an Ass.” The Cardinal agreed and went even further saying: “You do him wrong Sir. He is such an Ass, that no man ever rubbed against him, but returned with a kick.”3 Despite this reputation, Du Moulin worked hard in his ecumenical endeavors. Furthermore, his views of the subject of divine grace and ecclesiastical union evolved over the years leading to Dort. He served as a leading spokesman for plans for a pan-Protestant union working with James I of England on such a project, this despite significant differences in church polity. For his part, James I considered ecclesiastical unity one of the primary goals of his career, according to Isaac Casaubon, the French irenicist and philologist.4 Du Moulin had long been a staunch supporter of the King, having defended his requirement of an Oath of Allegiance against Roman Catholic detractors in 1610.5 Again, in 1614, he defended the King against criticism from Cardinal Bellarmine, who in turn had responded to James’s 1607 treatise, initially published anonymously, Triplici nodo, triplex cuneus, attacking papal authority in secular affairs.6 A key source for Du Moulin’s support of union was his relationship with the Huguenot statesman, Philippe du Plessis-Mornay. The two Protestant leaders 2 Theodore van Raalte, “The French Reformed Synods of the Seventeenth Century,” in Martin I. Klauber, ed., The Theology of the French Reformed Churches: From Henri IV to the Revocation of the Edit of Nantes (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 93. 3 Peter du Moulin, “The Author’s Life,” Preface to Pierre du Moulin, The Novelty of Popery, Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity (London: Francis Tyton, 1662), 7. 4 W. B. Patterson, King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 135. 5 Pierre du Moulin, Défense de la foy catholique contenue au livre de trespuissant et sérénissime roy Jaques I. roy de la Grand’Bretagne & d’Irlande: contre la response de f. N. Coeffeteau docteur en théologie, & vicaire général des frères prescheurs (Genève: Esaïe le Preux, 1610). 6 William Robert Godfrey, “Tensions Within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618–1619” (PhD dissertation: Stanford University, 1974), 238; Pierre du Moulin, De Monarchia temporali Pontificis Romani Liber (London: Norton, 1614); James I, Triplici nodo, triplex cuneus: or, An Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance (London: R. Barker, 1607).

Theological Responses to the Synod of Dort in France

had been corresponding about the project since 1605. Mornay’s interest dated back to the era of religious wars where he had served as a close confidant of the future King, Henri IV. Mornay believed that alliances with foreign Protestant powers would significantly assist the Huguenot cause. The accession of James I to the English throne seemed to Mornay an auspicious moment to put a plan for union into motion even though the Huguenots had already achieved a measure of toleration in France with the Edict on Nantes in 1598.7 Du Moulin initially hoped that James I would convene an international synod to forge a universal accord. Du Moulin even drafted a proposal for such a conference for James I. This plan continued to gain momentum at the French National Synod of Tonneins in 1614 where Du Moulin presented a six-page proposal entitled, “Means proposed to bring together the Christian churches that have shaken off the Pope’s yoke, and to diminish the differences that have emerged among these churches or that may emerge in future.” The title provides plenty of clues to the contents of the proposal. The first stage would be to unite the various Reformed groups, French, English, Dutch, Swiss, Scottish, and Palatine under a common confession that reflected the essential aspects of the Christian faith necessary for salvation. Once such an agreement was ratified, the second stage would be to extend the right hand of fellowship to the Lutherans, despite significant differences in church polity and sacramental theology. As a part of this plan, Lutherans would have to make some compromises, such as giving up or toning down their notion of the ubiquity of Christ and modifying their position of the physical presence of the Lord “in, with, and under” the elements of the Lord’s Supper. The entire group would then put forward a common confession and would celebrate by communing together.8 Du Moulin continued to develop his friendship with James I and spent three months in England in 1615 at the royal court, often standing behind the King at a place of honor at the King’s table. He also accompanied the King to Cambridge where Du Moulin was awarded a doctoral degree. James I also rewarded Du Moulin with the office of prebend at Canterbury.9 This came with an annual salary, but Du Moulin had to profess fealty to the King, which posed a problem for him since he was a French subject, so he had to add the qualifier “without compromising the allegiance owed to my king,” meaning, of course, Louis XIII 7 W. Brown Patterson, “James I and the Huguenot Synod of Tonneins of 1614,” Harvard Theological Review 65 (1972): 244. 8 Donald Sinnema, “Arminianism and the Synod of Dort” in Martin I. Klauber, ed., The Theology of the French Reformed Churches: From Henri IV to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 101–2. 9 This anecdote is taken from a brief biography of Du Moulin composed by his son as an introduction to Pierre du Moulin, The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity (1664), 15–16.

29

30

Martin I. Klauber

of France.10 Du Moulin reciprocated by penning a reply to the French Cardinal, Jacques-Davy du Perron, who had criticized an attempt by the French King to impose an oath of allegiance similar to the one that James I had issued.11 Certainly, the consistory at Paris, where Du Moulin was a pastor, was reluctant to grant him permission to venture to England for fear that he would not return. They recognized the implications of the relationship between their most prominent pastor and the English king. In order the reach his irenic goal, Du Moulin had to get past the issue of ecclesiastical polity, especially since James I had issued the dictum “no bishops, no king” at the Hampton Court Conference of 1604. Du Moulin, therefore, had to consider church government as a nonessential issue. Indeed, he did not consider the episcopacy a matter of divine right but of ecclesiastical expediency, and was quite willing, at this early date, to allow for it in his plan for union. However, the issue of church government was a trifle compared with the more substantial differences in sacramental theology with the Lutherans.12 The concession that the Reformed offered was merely to say that the elements were not bare signs and that in the Eucharist, the faithful commune truly with the body of the risen Christ. This was a nice initial gesture, but since it was coupled with the statement that the hearts of the believers are lifted to the risen Christ in heaven, it would likely not have been sufficient.13 The following synod held at Vitré in 1617 commissioned Du Moulin, André Rivet, Daniel Chamier, and Jean Chauve, all of whom would be chosen as the French delegates to Dort, to develop a plan to achieve union. So, the Synod of Dort was initially seen as an opportunity to foster accord rather than division. However, the Arminian issue quickly began to diminish such plans for theological accord.14 A second major factor that impacted plans for union was the outbreak of religious war between Roman Catholics and Protestants in Bohemia in May 1618, a conflict that escalated into what would eventually become known as the Thirty Years War.15 A series of letters that preceded the Synod of Dort muddied the waters of Du Moulin’s true position on Arminianism. In early 1616 the former Dutch ambassador reported to Du Moulin that some Remonstrants were claiming that Du Moulin was sympathetic to their views. So, Du Moulin felt duty-bound to reply in a letter dated June 1, 1616. The letter contained two sections. The first was critical of the Arminians while the second half was critical of some among 10 Lucien Rimbault, Pierre du Moulin 1568–1658: Un pasteur classique à l’âge classique (Paris: J. Vrin. 1966), 78. 11 Patterson, “James I and the Huguenot Synod of Tonneins,” 266. 12 Sinnema, “Arminianism”, 100–2. 13 Patterson, “James I and the Huguenot Synod of Tonneins,” 269–70. 14 Sinnema, “Arminianism,” 102. See also Maag, “Impact Amid Absence,” a2340. 15 Patterson, “James I and the Huguenot Synod of Tonneins,” 269.

Theological Responses to the Synod of Dort in France

the more extreme party among the Contra-Remonstrants. Unfortunately, in early 1617, some among the latter group published only the first half which served as a kind of propaganda piece for their own cause, while Du Moulin, in reality, held to a more nuanced position.16 In the second section, Du Moulin did attempt to distance himself from some of the Reformed hardliners who had made some extreme statements that Du Moulin believed to be “hard and odious,” such as that sins take place under the care of God or that God takes pleasure in reprobating individuals without regard to their sins. These ideas, for Du Moulin, were contrary to God’s goodness and righteousness. However, these comments were hardly an endorsement for the Remonstrant position, but a caution for the Reformed not to over-react and, in essence, make God seem to be the author of sin.17 Du Moulin felt duty-bound to clarify his position in a December 15, 1616, letter in which he expressed his dismay that some thought he might be sympathetic to the Arminians, when in fact he now believed that their views threatened the very foundation of the faith.18 Moreover, such views threatened to undermine the progress made in the Netherlands for the sake of the gospel and for which so many had suffered as martyrs. The key phrase in the letter was that the new doctrines of the Remonstrants “separates them from union with the churches of other countries which have supported the same cause of the Gospel and have until now taught the same doctrine.”19 Du Moulin, therefore, saw the views of those who were forming “new doctrines” as antithetical to his plans for a Protestant union, noting what he believed to be their semi-Pelagianism, which many thought was just as much a product of the Counter-Reformation as it was a response to the Reformed doctrine of election. For Du Moulin, the threat of heresy would completely undermine his plans for union and, therefore, he saw it as his duty to nip it in the bud. Since his goal of Protestant union was contingent on the first step of Reformed unity, Arminianism stood in the way. The Remonstrants were outside the bounds of orthodoxy in his opinion and could not be included in his irenic vision.20 Then, in an October 21, 1617, letter, Du Moulin expressed his view that he would only tolerate the Arminians if their views did not disturb what he believed to be the foundations of the faith. He also conveyed his intent to investigate the whole issue more thoroughly in a full-length book which would be his

16 17 18 19 20

Sinnema, “Arminianism,” 103. Rimbault, Pierre du Moulin, 90–91. Sinnema, “Arminianism,” 105–6. Rimbault, Pierre du Moulin, 91. Rimbault, Pierre du Moulin, 92.

31

32

Martin I. Klauber

famous Anatomy of Arminianism,21 a work in which he came down clearly against the Remonstrant position. So, Du Moulin likely did not so much change his position over the couple of years preceding the synod as he did develop his ideas more thoroughly.22 Du Moulin completed his work in early 1617, prior to the Synod. In the introduction, he noted that a crucial factor in his move against the Arminians was the receipt of the Collatio Hagiensis, a summary of the conference held at The Hague in 1611 concerning the Arminian controversy in the Netherlands. There was some debate over whether or not it should have been published immediately because it might prejudge the decisions of Dort. The Anatomy represented a complete and systematic takedown of Arminianism on a number of points, most importantly in that he argued that it made God’s will dependent on man’s volition. He denied the idea that God loves all men equally, arguing that “the love of God is not an affection nor a passion, nor an inclination of the mind, nor any desire; for God is not touched by these passions, as being impassible, and is not subject to affections.”23 He disagreed with the Arminians on the distinction between the antecedent and consequent will of God. In this view God loves some men more than others by his consequent will, that is, after they believe, but by his antecedent will he loves all men equally. God desires all to be saved and his grace is sufficient for all. Du Moulin labeled this “deadly speech.” God, therefore, is often disappointed or frustrated in his antecedent will. In addition, the Arminians agreed that the means to faith are not offered equally to all people. Du Moulin concluded from this that God could not love all men equally.24 Even though he excluded the Remonstrants from his plans of a pan-Protestant union, Du Moulin did not give up on the project even after the convening of the Synod of Dort. He wrote a letter dated December 8, 1618, to Dudley Carleton, the English ambassador to the United Provinces, in which he expressed the hope that the synod would draft a confession of faith which would be amenable to the Church of England, as well as to the reformed movements on the continent, and that it might set the stage for future negotiations with the Lutherans. So instead of seeing Dort as a symbol of divisiveness, Du Moulin hoped that it would provide the basis for broader unity. After the conclusion of the Synod of Dort, Du Moulin worked tirelessly to promote its canons in France and abroad.25 21 Pierre du Moulin, Anatome Arminianismi, seu enucleatio controversiarum quae in Belgio agiantur super doctrina de providentia: de praedestinatione, de morte Christi, de natura et gratia (Lugduni-Batavorum, 1619). 22 Sinnema, “Arminianism,” 106. 23 Pierre du Moulin, Anatome Arminianismi, 233–34. 24 Pierre du Moulin, Anatome Arminianismi, 243–45. 25 Godfrey, “Tensions Within International Calvinism,” 244–45.

Theological Responses to the Synod of Dort in France

The next French National Synod after the Synod of Dort which met at Alais in 1620 unanimously ratified the Canons of Dort. At Alais, the canons were read publicly and approved unanimously by the members. The participants were also required to swear allegiance to the canons and to defend them with all their might until “their last breath.” In addition, a formula was drawn up summarizing the teachings at Dort that all future members of all future synods had to sign. Van Stam argues that the declaration at Alais was written very quickly because a full French translation of the Canons was not prepared until 1623.26 Du Moulin served as the moderator of the Synod of Alais and some at the time, including the assistant moderator Laurent Brunier, argued that he exercised a rigid and even a “papal” hand over the proceeding. Eugène and Emile Haag have argued that Du Moulin did encounter some resistance at Alais, but reduced it to silence, departing from the typical collegiality of such discussions.27 Such accusations were not unusual, however. For example, after the synod of Privas in 1612, where Du Moulin served as the assistant to Daniel Chamier who presided as moderator, a pamphlet accused Chamier of serving as a kind of pope and Du Moulin as his vicar.28 Some therefore were unhappy with authoritarian governance at the national synods. Rimbault admits that Du Moulin presided over the Synod of Alais with great firmness. One must remember, however, that he was elected to this position for a reason, to ensure doctrinal conformity. Furthermore, his position as moderator limited his ability to enter into the fray fully on behalf of the Canons of Dort, so Rimbault argues that this label of Du Moulin as a Protestant pope may be a bit overdrawn.29 Ironically, while he was presiding over the Synod of Alais, Du Moulin was getting into trouble with the French crown. He had written a letter to James I asking for his assistance on behalf of the Calvinist, Frederick V of the Palatinate, who served briefly as the King of Bohemia. Frederick was also the son-in-law of James I, and many believed that the English King would defend his claims which were opposed by the Hapsburgs. Du Moulin wrote the letter at the request of the English ambassador to France, Herbert of Cherbury, who also tried, but failed, to obtain Louis XIII’s support for the same cause. Unfortunately, the letter fell into the hands of one of James I’s favorites, the Duke of Buckingham, who passed it along to Louis XIII. As a result, Du Moulin was banished from France and took refuge in the neighboring principality of Sedan where he had 26 F. P. Van Stam, The Controversy over the Theology of Saumur, 1634–1650: Disrupting Debates Among the Huguenots in Complicated Circumstances (Amsterdam: APA-Holland University Press, 1988), 18. 27 Eugène and Emile Haag La France protestante ou vie des protestants français (Paris: Joel Cherbuliez, 1846–1859), 4:421. 28 Portrait du pontife Chamier et son vicaire Du Moulin (Paris, 1612). 29 Rimbault, Pierre du Moulin, 93.

33

34

Martin I. Klauber

been invited by the Duke of Bouillon to serve as a professor at the Reformed Academy and as a pastor. It is significant to note that Sedan did not become part of France until 1651 and had served as an independent principality and a haven for refugees from the French Wars of Religion in the sixteenth century.30 Du Moulin did not intend to spend the rest of his life there and repeatedly attempted to secure royal permission to return to France. For example, the First National Synod at Charenton in 1623 contains a request to the King that Du Moulin be reinstated and allowed to return to France, but it was denied. The King would have been willing to allow him to return, but only if he suspended his public ministry, a condition to which he was unwilling to acquiesce.31 So, one must understand that Du Moulin’s role in the Arminian controversy from this time on had to take place from outside the official channels of provincial or national synods. He could write letters and treatises, but could no longer control affairs in a direct manner. Although the delegates to the Synod of Alais voted unanimously to affirm the Canons of Dort, some resistance developed rather quickly within the provincial synods. For example, the prominent Reformed pastor David Blondel and his colleague Stephanus Curcellus, pastor at Amiens, objected to the elevation of the canons to the level of virtual articles of faith at the provincial synod at Charenton in 1621.32 At the provincial synod of Die in the same year, the canons were accepted unanimously, but one minister, John Balcet of Pragelas, in the province of Dauphiné, was purposely not present for the vote. He could not hide from the entire synod and, eventually, he was formally called to swear to the canons, which he refused to do, begging for more time to study the matter. The synod gave him one month to do so, but upon further research, he concluded that he could not in full conscience subscribe to the canons. The local consistory then suspended him from the ministry and he was enjoined to stay silent on Remonstrant doctrine. He eventually went to Paris to visit with Grotius and Tilenus33 and was later disciplined at the National Synod of Charenton in 1623. The Synod described him as “about two and thirty years old, low of stature, black Hair, a Melancholy Fellow, thin and Meagre, his head stooping downwards, blubber lips.” Such mocking descriptions of the deposed ministers was not

30 Rimbault, Pierre du Moulin, 97. 31 John Quick, Synodicon in Gallia Reformata, or, the Acts, Decisions, Decrees, and Canons of thouse famous National Councils of the Reformed Churches in France (1692), 2:105. 32 Geeraert Brandt, The History of the Reformation and other Ecclesiastical Transaction in and about the Low-Countries (London: John Nicks, 1720–1723), 4:331. 33 Brandt, The History of the Reformation, 4:331–34.

Theological Responses to the Synod of Dort in France

unusual in the minutes. One other deposed minister was described as having an “eagle nose” and “small crane legs.”34 Another critical factor that the French churches had to deal with was what to do with the Arminians who had fled to France. After the Synod of Dort, the States-General had barred their pastors from teaching or ministering contrary to the canons, which they refused to do. As a result, about two hundred of them had been ordered to leave the Netherlands. Many went to Paris with the help of Daniel Tilenus, the former professor at Sedan who had sided with the Arminians. The French Reformed churches, especially the congregation at Charenton, had to decide whether or not to allow them to worship with them. Certainly, in 1621, it makes sense that when Hugo Grotius, an Arminian, and the famous founder of international law, escaped from prison at Loevestein Castle in a book chest and fled to Paris, where Louis XIII received him and granted him a pension, the church at Charenton would refuse him the right hand of fellowship. This changed, however, by 1637 when Grotius was the ambassador from Sweden in Paris and was invited to take communion at Charenton. He was visited by a delegation of some of the most prominent French Reformed pastors, including Michel le Faucheur and Jean Daillé.35 Grotius himself apparently said in 1635 that “the Synod of Dordt has been forgotten here [at Charenton]; it was a matter of passions.”36 Daillé had long been an advocate of toleration and wrote in 1628 to André Rivet, the former minister at Thouars who had become a professor at Leyden that they should be accepted into fellowship without forcing them to abjure the five Remonstrances, until “God fully reveals the truth to them.”37 While the French Reformed churches were deliberating on how to deal with the displaced Remonstrants, some Arminians hoped that the French crown would provide them with some measure of religious toleration. The noted Remonstrant leaders, Simon Episcopius and Jan Uytenbogaert, traveled with a small entourage of colleagues to Paris in 1621 to confer with Grotius on the issue of toleration in France, and to obtain the support of the King to increase his pressure on the United Provinces to relax their restrictions on the Remonstrants. Grotius informed them that he had gained some measure of support from the King’s council for a number of reasons. First, the Arminians were closer to Roman Catholicism on the issue of the role of good works in the 34 Quick, Synodicon, 2:123–24. 35 Henk J. M. Nellen, Hugo Grotius: A Lifelong Struggle for Peace in Church and State, 1583–1645 (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 517. 36 Van Stam, The Controversy over the Theology of Saumur, 21. 37 Letter dated April 8, 1628, cited by Van Stam, The Controversy over the Theology of Saumur, 20–21. The original letter is housed at Leyden UB, BPL 279, 2.

35

36

Martin I. Klauber

scheme of salvation and had demonstrated loyalty to the government. Second, some members of the council wanted to diminish the power of the Reformed churches, and lastly, the Remonstrants had always demonstrated loyalty to France.38 This plan was supported later that year when the Arminians in Paris, Grotius, Daniel Tilenus, and Francis D’Or, a former Reformed pastor in Sedan who had been removed from his charge for Arminian views and had settled in Paris, signed a declaration supporting the French crown against the Reformed resistance at La Rochelle. They also condemned the decisions at Alais as new doctrine and complained that they should have been granted an official hearing there.39 At the national synod held at Charenton in 1623, the delegates had to deal with the King’s concern that they had imposed a set of doctrinal standards from a foreign power at Dort upon the French churches. They responded that there was really nothing new and that the canons really served to bolster the beliefs that the French Reformed churches had previously held, except that they provided some boundaries necessary to keep out the Arminian doctrinal errors that had been creeping in. They vowed to remove all direct references to the city of Dort and that they would just accept the canons themselves.40 In addition, the synod responded to a query from the church at Charenton asking for direction of how to handle Arminians and sympathizers in their church. The synod ruled that they should be allowed to worship so long as they did not attempt to propagate their distinctive beliefs. However, this provision was temporary and gave the ministers three months to convince them of their errors. If they remained obstinate, they would be barred from the communion table.41 One of the ministers who had refused to subscribe to the oath at Alais, Etienne de Courcelles, who had previously resigned his position at the church at Amiens because of his Arminian views, requested that he be reinstated into the pastorate vowing that he had changed his position and could now subscribe to the Canons of Dort. The synod agreed and he was reinstated as a pastor. However, he later changed his position and succeeded Simon Episcopius as a professor at the Remonstrant seminary in Amsterdam where he became wellknown as a follower of Descartes and as a translator of the works of Grotius.42 The synod went on to repeat the Canons of Dort without mentioning the town by name and came up with a revised subscription that was less arduous 38 39 40 41 42

Brandt, The History of the Reformation, 4:335. Brandt, The History of the Reformation, 4:338. Quick, Synodicon, 2:96–97. Quick, Synodicon, 2:109. Quick, Synodicon, 2:111–12.

Theological Responses to the Synod of Dort in France

than the one used at Alais. Still, it was pretty rigorous as follows: we “do declare with all possible sincerity, the Articles and Canons of above-mentioned to be grounded on the Word of God, and agreeable to the Confession of Faith, owned and received in the Reformed churches of this Kingdom, from which in the presence of God we do protest, that through His Grace, we will never depart.”43 In 1631, the Second National Synod at Charenton declared that any of their members who tried to propagate Arminian teachings even in private conversations would be censured. The fact that this had to be mentioned at the synod was that some were sympathetic to Arminian notions. In addition, those from the Lutheran persuasion were welcomed into fellowship and the Lord’s Table and to present their children for baptism provided that they were in agreement in the fundamental articles of the faith and did not attempt to teach and persuade in a manner contrary to the French Reformed Confession of faith. 44 At the synod, Jacob Chastier was deposed from the pastorate for Arminianism and other alleged errors and for propagating such beliefs. He was described as “having a hog-like nose and eyebrows and that he walked quickly, almost running, and being very rude in his discourse.” There were relatively few examples of discipline at the national synods where ministers were relieved from their posts for Arminian views. More common offenses included adultery, fornication, public drunkenness or theft, and showed that the synods were quite strict in enforcing their discipline.45 The most obvious early dissenter against the Canons of Dort in France was the theology professor Daniel Tilenus, who was dismissed from his post by the Duke of Bouillon at the Academy of Sedan in 1620 for his Arminian views. The Duke had previously tolerated his views but, following the Synod of Dort, he wanted closer ties to Holland, especially considering his marriage to the halfsister of William of Orange.46 Tilenus had a history of holding controversial theological opinions and ran afoul of Du Moulin over the issue of the two natures of Christ. The French National Synod of Tonneins in 1614 pronounced Tilenus to be orthodox and ordered that the two theologians travel to Saumur for a reconciliation brokered by Du Plessis-Mornay.47 Tilenus had started his career as a Calvinist but remarkably converted upon reading the arguments of the Remonstrant, Johannes Arnoldi Corvinus. As a result, Tilenus had to leave the principality of Sedan in 1620 and settled in 43 Quick, Synodicon, 2:151. 44 Quick, Synodicon, 2:296–97. See also J. van den Berg, “The Synod of Dort in the Balance,” Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 69, no. 2 (1989): 185. 45 Quick, Synodicon, 2:316. 46 Brandt, The History of the Reformation, 4:72. 47 Patterson, King James VI, 169.

37

38

Martin I. Klauber

Paris where he very quickly had a dispute with the Scottish theologian, John Cameron,48 who was teaching at Saumur, that lasted from April 24–28, 1620 at l’Isle near Orléans at the summer estate of Jacques Groslot over the role of human will in conversion. The proceedings were published in Leyden in 1621, but Tilenus complained that the account was slanted against him.49 He also shared a house with Grotius in Paris from 1622–1623 and became probably the foremost critic of the Synod of Dort. He spent the rest of his life in Paris where he devoted himself to attacking the Synod of Dort, which he referred to as an abortive child,50 and defending his Arminian views. He received an audience with James I of England as early as 1620 where he condemned the canons as essentially making God the author of sin. In 1621 he published a key work on the subject, Traité de la Cause et de l’Origine du Péché, and in 1623 he wrote another work, La Doctrine des Synodes de d’Ordrecht et d’Alès mise à l’espreuve de la pratique, criticizing the decisions of the Synod of Alais in adopting the canons, complaining that the required oath would have been better served to promote direct teachings from Scripture rather than the alleged “man-made” teaching of Dort. What was particularly significant about this latter book was his summary of the so-called five points which were highly skewed to make them seem unreasonable to the average reader. His synopsis was picked up notably in English and, according to Donald Sinnema, essentially became the standard Arminian interpretation, and many readers for the next two-hundred years seemed unaware that they were highly partisan. As Sinnema notes, Tilenus’s parody of the five points may have become a major source of the so-called “Calvin against the Calvinists” debate which became very popular in England due to such works as Thomas Scott’s 1811 Remarks on the Refutation of Calvinism by George Tomline. Here, Tomline noted significant differences between the caricature of the canons by Tilenus and the teachings of Calvin himself. Perhaps if Tomline had consulted the Canons of Dort directly instead of reading them through the lens of Tilenus, his conclusions might have been entirely different.51 Although the French Reformed churches initially enjoyed relative harmony in their acceptance of the Canons of Dort, all of that began to change in 1634 48 On Cameron see Albert Gootjes, “John Cameron (ca. 1579–1625) and the French Universalist Tradition,” in Martin I. Klauber, ed., The Theology of the French Reformed Churches: From Henri IV to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 169–96. 49 Daniel Tilenus and John Cameron, Amica collatio de gratiae et voluntatis humanae concursu invocatione & quibusdam annexis, instituta inter cl. V. Danielem Tilenum et Johannem Cameronem (Leyden, 1621); Brandt, The History of the Reformation, 4:73. 50 Brandt, The History of the Reformation, 3:373. 51 Sinnema, “Arminianism,” 127–33.

Theological Responses to the Synod of Dort in France

when a professor of theology at the French Reformed Academy of Saumur, Moïse Amyraut, published his famous Brief Treatise on Predestination. In his attempt to interpret the Canons of Dort, he developed a doctrine referred to as universal grace or hypothetical universalism.52 In his teaching, following that of his mentor John Cameron, Christ died for the sins of the world, but his grace would only be effective for the elect. Aspects of his Treatise sounded to many as very similar to aspects of Remonstrant thought such as when Amyraut stated that God loves all men equally or that his call to salvation is conditional on the belief of the individual. Although Amyraut rejected predestination based on foreseen merit, many still believed he was sympathetic to Arminianism. The issue came to a head at the National Synod of Alençon in 1637 where Du Moulin and his cousin André Rivet sent their condemnations of Amyraut and his colleague Paul Testard in advance. In addition, there were two anonymous treatises sent that also judged them in a negative way. Furthermore, the doctrine of universal grace had been condemned at provincial synods leading up to the national synod. Benjamin Basnage presided at the synod and broke precedent by giving a sermon at its inception, and although he did not explicitly condemn the Salmurian theologians, the audience knew that he was supporting their condemnation. The alleged errors specifically discussed included the idea that Christ was sent for all and that his grace is sufficient for all. Some of the delegates were clearly upset about the opening sermon and asked Basnage to testify that it was not specifically directed against Amyraut and Testard. Basnage declined to answer.53 A separate meeting was held to go through the material, led ironically by Samuel de L’Angle, who was a pastor at Rouen and Du Moulin’s cousin. They could not come to an agreement and then asked Amyraut and Testard to defend their positions behind closed doors. They examined Du Moulin’s accusations that Amyraldianism was akin to Arminianism alongside the statement from De L’Angle that Amyraut and Testard were not Arminians at all.54 Finally, Amyraut and Testard were provided an opportunity to defend themselves to the entire synod. They referred to Cameron’s statement that “Christ died for all men sufficiently, but for the Elect only effectually.”55 The committee reported out a resolution of the conflict in twelve articles citing both statements of Amyraut and Testard as well as some of the statements of their opponents. 52 Moïse Amyraut, Brief Traitté de la Predestination et de ses principals Dependances (Saumur: Jean Lesnier et Isaac Desbordes, 1634). 53 Van Stam, The Controversy over the Theology of Saumur, 119–20. 54 Van Stam, The Controversy over the Theology of Saumur, 128–29. 55 Brian G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth Century France (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 92.

39

40

Martin I. Klauber

Their goal was to achieve some level of common ground. They cited the following in the first article: “The death of Jesus Christ is sufficient for all men but efficacious only for the elect. Therefore, it can be said that as regards the sufficiency of his satisfaction Jesus Christ willed to die for all men but as regards the vivifying and saving effect of it only for the elect.” Furthermore, it said that those who are not saved could not blame Christ for any defect in his sacrificial work or any lack of invitation to salvation. They have only themselves to blame. The synod was satisfied with this explanation but cautioned them in the future that they should avoid the phrase that said that Christ died “equally” for all.56 They agreed and stated that they only used the term “conditional” predestination as an anthropomorphic phrase.57 The debate continued to rage on for a generation, but the French Reformed national synods never officially condemned Amyraut, who argued that his teachings were faithful to the Canons of Dort and the theology of Calvin. Therefore, the fight was not so much about the canons themselves but about how they were to be interpreted and how much leeway should be allowed. So, if one were to stipulate that the debate over Amyraldianism in France was primarily an internal dispute among followers of Dort, one could argue the Reformed churches in France, with a few notable exceptions, remarkably maintained their solidarity behind its canons. Even Claude Pajon, in his controversy at Saumur over the role of the Holy Spirit in conversion, claimed solidarity with the Canons of Dort.58 Some Reformed theologians did soften the tone in the manner of their swearing allegiance, but even with the Amyraut controversy, all parties continued to subscribe to the canons. They merely differed in their interpretation of them.

56 Van Stam, The Controversy over the Theology of Saumur, 131. 57 Armstrong, Calvinism, 93. 58 See Albert Gootjes, Claude Pajon (1626–1685) and the Academy of Saumur: The First Controversy over Grace (Leiden: Brill, 2013).

Matthew Scott Harding

3.

A Voice Among the Restricted French Delegates of Dort: Pierre du Moulin on Providence and Predestination

The period of the first part of the seventeenth century among the Protestant Reformed churches on the continent and the British Isles has proven to be instrumental in the formation of the “river” known as Reformed orthodox theology. Though various Reformed theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries fought to voice their diverse streams of Reformed theology, the main branch of Reformed orthodoxy from the universities and churches of Europe had yet to face an internal theological challenge like that from the followers of Jacob Arminius and their remonstrance against essential theological precepts of God’s sovereignty within salvation. The torrent of what became known as Arminianism flowed vociferously to the watershed event known as the Synod of Dordrecht (Dort) held within the States General in the United Republic of the Netherlands (1618–1619). Ninety-one ministers, elders, and professors received their credentials as official delegates to Dort from four foreign countries, five German (Imperial) territories, and ten states within the United Low Countries, who convened to navigate through the remonstrant disputes and re-establish a codified theological confession both true to Scripture and informed by the Belgic Confession and the will of the majority of Reformed churches throughout Europe. The synod delegates convened, debated, and deliberated for seven months, producing what would be known as the decisive document aptly named, the Canons of Dort. Though the official French delegates to Dort, Daniel Chamier, Jean Chauve, André Rivet, and Pierre du Moulin longed to be among their international colleagues at the Synod, they were restricted by their Sovereign, King Louis XIII, from attending the international Synod; yet they still found a way to voice their insights and judgment toward the Arminian controversy, and chief among them was pastor and theologian, Pierre du Moulin (1568–1658).1 Known for his 1 Leslie Gordon states, “It is surprising that there is no complete account of the life of Pierre du Moulin in English, but it is much more surprising to find that none exists in French.” Leslie Gordon Tait, “Pierre du Moulin (1568–1658), Huguenot Theologian” (PhD Diss., University of Edinburgh, 1955), 1. Though there have been a few monographs and articles on Du Moulin since she penned those words, unfortunately in the same tenor of her disbelief, all these decades later, there remains a great void of biographical material and theological discourse concerning Pierre du Moulin and his underestimated influence on seventeenth-century France and Europe. For biographical material on Du Moulin, see Du Moulin, Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire de

42

Matthew Scott Harding

strong voice for Reformed polemics and evangelical unity among the Reformed, Lutheran, and Anglican churches, Pierre du Moulin earned an early reputation for pursuing peace, irenic dialogue, and grand gestures to unite the Protestant churches of Europe and Britain. However, as the full weight of the Arminian argument became more explicit in Holland, Du Moulin—among others—began to sound the alarm for correction and the return to Reformed Orthodoxy among all the churches and universities of the Low Country. Leaving his irenic tone to former days, Du Moulin took the mantle of ferocious defender of the faith within France and a fierce, paternal voice to be reckoned with on the continent. Gideon Gory declares that Du Moulin was so impassioned to the extreme to defeat Arminianism that even against threat of death by King Louis XIII to attend the Synod, Du Moulin would not abandon the cause of the delegation. Thus, Du Moulin focused his literary voice on the decisive defeat of Arminianism and the perspicuity of the doctrine of predestination, the subject of which occupied his mind and preaching continually until his death.2 Gory states of Du Moulin, “Arminianism was the ‘bête noire,’ the very pet peeve, of his aging existence.”3 This chapter will examine in further depth Du Moulin’s prescription of the doctrines of providence and predestination to instruct the French delegation of the Synod of Dort in absentia, and by design to affirm the forthcoming Canons Protestantisme Français (1858), 171–82, 333–44, 465–77; Brian G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth Century France (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969); Lucien Rimbault, Pierre du Moulin 1568–1658: Un Pasteur Classique à l’âge Classique (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1966); and Martin I. Klauber, “Defender of the Faith or Reformed Rabelais? Pierre du Moulin (1568–1658) and the Arminians,” in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches: From Henri IV to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, ed. Martin I. Klauber (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014). 2 Du Moulin explained at the beginning of his treatise on The Anatomy of Arminianism the purpose for which he writes to uncover the wiles and deceits of the growing plague of heresy known as Arminianism: “And I who to so holy a work could not bring my travel, have at least brought my desires…. What were the impediments which hindered my determined journey, I need not rehearse. Yet, when many men and the same good men, and of great authority and wisdom amongst you, had exhorted me that I would write somewhat upon these controversies I not unwillingly obeyed; which I have done, not so much in the hope of effecting what I would as being ashamed to refute them, and desirous of making trial. For I had rather that godly and learned men should find in me want of prudence then accuse me of negligence. Therefore, I have printed my schedule and papers, and have reviewed those things which I had meditated upon these questions, which I have uttered in a plain and untrimmed style, that as it were in a lean spare body, the force of the truth might clearly appear. And I have endeavored to bring light to this darkness, in which the most quick-sighted do often grope at the way.” Du Moulin, Anatomie of Arminianism (English edition, London: 1619–1620), A3. 3 Gédéon Gory, Pierre du Moulin: Essai Sur Sa Vie, Sa Controverse et Sa Polémique (Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 1888), 56.

A Voice Among the Restricted French Delegates of Dort

of Dort on the Article concerning predestination, the subject of which would be at the core of confessional Reformed orthodoxy.4 Du Moulin’s Exposé of Arminian Heresy Concerning Providence and Predestination The intended purpose of the Synod of Dort was to address the errant theological views of the followers of Arminius toward God’s nature in the work of salvation and specifically man’s supposed synergistic work and free will within God’s efficacious grace which was held to inform the elective decree of God.5 The central issue of Dort concerned the sovereignty of God in salvation as expressed within the doctrine of predestination, which was the “focal point of the Arminian attack.”6 Though absent from the Dort proceedings, Du Moulin had well prepared his response to the Arminian assault on the Reformed understanding of predestination as early as 1616 and sent letters of instructions (1618) to other attending delegates along with a cursory summary of his doctrinal defense of predestination in his sixteen-page Confession on the Controversy which Started in the Netherlands (1618).7 Du Moulin’s Confession was a perfunctory document 4 Both Martin Klauber and Donald Sinnema review Du Moulin’s main ideals toward the doctrine of predestination based on his Anatomy of Arminianism in their respective chapters of The Theology of the French Reformed Churches: From Henry IV to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Martin I. Klauber, ed. (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014). This chapter will take an extended look at Du Moulin’s systematic insight concerning predestination both in defensive terms as attempting to dismantle Arminianism and in positive terms, as Du Moulin described a biblical and Reformed standard of the doctrine of predestination. 5 As Andreas Beck has summarized, “Donald Sinnema argued both parties on the Synod of Dordt had a ‘different agenda’: ‘The Remonstrants wanted the extreme views of reprobation judged; the Synod’s concern was to examine the Remonstrant idea of election based on foreseen faith’ (Sinnema 1985: 447, cf. 2011). Sinnema comes to the conclusion that the synod ultimately arrived at a ‘mild rejection’ of the Remonstrants’ view on reprobation without anathematizing it.” Andreas J. Beck, “Reformed Confessions and Scholasticism. Diversity and Harmony,” Perichoresis 14, no. 3 (2016): 31. 6 Fred H. Klooster, “The Doctrinal Deliverances of Dort,” in Peter Y. De Jong, ed., Crisis in the Reformed Churches (Grandville, Mich.: Reformed Fellowship Inc., 2008), 81. 7 Confessio super Controversiis, quae in Belgio Agintantur. Sinnema relates that the document was received and read at Dort in April 1619 after the canons had already been drafted. See notes on p. 113 in Klauber, The Theology of the French Reformed Churches. Du Moulin agonized over his absence at the synod and relates his pursuit to help add value to the discussions and debates therein: “It cannot be expressed how earnestly, I desired to be present at that reverend Synod, to which the churches of France appointed me with some of my brethren ... yet, being absent, I performed what I could; for I sent to the synod my opinion of the five points of the Controversies which are hindered in Belgia, having strengthened it with places and proofs

43

44

Matthew Scott Harding

which merely represented his five-hundred-page tome, The Anatomy of Arminianism, in which he pugnaciously critiqued the arguments of Arminianism and rendered a robust defense of Reformed orthodoxy, especially concerning the doctrine of predestination.8 At that time, Du Moulin’s Anatomy of Arminianism served the Reformed world as the most incisive defense of Reformed theology against the ideas of Arminianism and particularly concerning predestination; the book further supported the Canons of Dort, which was also produced in 1619. In Du Moulin’s Anatomy, he excoriated Arminius’s understanding of God’s providence and decree of predestination. In his foreword, Du Moulin underscored the serious nature by which he penned his thoughts concerning the repercussions of an Arminian-bent society, which might contribute to the upheaval of a God-fearing and law-abiding community. Du Moulin stated, In your wisdom, you shall observe from what beginnings to how great increases this pestilence [Arminianism] has come, and how under a show of the liberty of prophesizing, the reigns are let loose to wanton wits which cover licentiousness, under the name of liberty. For while men dispute those things of those foundations of faith, of which heretofore there was no strife amongst us, the most holy and most certain things began to be called into doubt and their scholastical skirmishing, forthwith burst out into a serious and earnest fight. For when this liberty has passed from the schools into the holy pulpits, and so into the streets, taverns, and barber-shops, the whole country was changed into a certain sea boiling with tumults; whence hatred had been bred in people, and piety is turned into contention, and obedience towards magistrates is more slack; to which evils, when the ambition of some men affecting novelties, had joined itself, which stirred up this fire with wind and fuel laid to it, this flame in a short time has immeasurably increased.9

out of the Holy Scripture.” Du Moulin, Anatomie of Arminianism (English edition, London: 1619–1620), A3. 8 Petrus Molinaeus (Pierre du Moulin), Anatome Arminianismi seu, Enucleatio controuersiarum quae in Belgio agitantur, super doctrina de Prouidentia: de Praedestinatione, de morte Christi, de natura & Gratia (apud Bonauenturam Elzeuir, 1619). This polemical work found great success (and the ire of the Arminian response) being published in 65 editions in three languages since its inception four hundred years ago. 9 Du Moulin, Anatome, A4. Underscoring the sobering task that Du Moulin undertook to defend orthodox Theology, he continued: “I am not ignorant how dangerous a thing it is to undergo the hazard of so many judgments; how many there that are ambitiously sour; and proudly disdainful; how few there are that take and understand these things; how fewer that are taken by them; how hard it is to contend with wily and witty men; who even when they themselves are caught, do so speak as if they have caught others; and who in a desperate cause do carry

A Voice Among the Restricted French Delegates of Dort

Believing that his treatise would shed light upon the followers of Arminius’s biblical and historical errors, Du Moulin prodded the reader to hope with him that cooler minds might prevail and that God would adjudicate sovereign truth in the current debate over his sovereign role in predestination. Du Moulin noted, though, there yet remains some relics of this disease, neither is the malice of the factions quite assuaged, but there is hope that the sides of the wound will in a short space close together again, and men’s minds will be reconciled. So, that it may be unlawful in your universities (from whence this contagion crept into the whole country) hereafter to teach any doctrine differing from the truth, and to call into doubt those things which are piously and prudently determined out of God’s word in your sacred Synod.10

Turning from a tenor of pastoral gentleness and academic civility, Du Moulin quickly set the tone of his polemic to label Arminius and the theology of his followers as being under the ruse of Satan. Du Moulin noted, “Satan, that he might hinder the course of these prosperous affairs has for many years put forth outward forces and workings to craft subtleties and intestine dissensions using men to present novelty [in terms of theology] under the pretense of piety.”11 Further, as Klauber and Sinnema both note in their respective chapters in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches, Du Moulin brazenly affirmed certain voices within the Synod, calling the Arminians “heretics, sectarians, monsters, and hardened blasphemers,” as well as “breeding evils,” “darting lizards,” and the like.12 Du Moulin used such pejoratives to convey his disdain for an Arminian theology which would be the ruin of souls if it had its sway over the churches and the unsuspecting. Du Moulin added, “The doctrine of the Arminians enwraps men’s consciences in unavoidable evils. For hereby is a man puffed up with themselves as if they were touched with commiseration: who undo again the things that have been begun by themselves, and do of purpose unfold their meanings, fearing to be understood; like lizards who out in the open field do run into the bushes. Nor am I ignorant how hard a thing it is for a man this is employed, whose mind is troubled with other cares and business, to write punctually and exactly concerning those things whereto the most free studies are scarce sufficient, nor men at greatest leisure.” Du Moulin, Anatome, A3. 10 Du Moulin, Anatome, A4. 11 Du Moulin, Anatome, A2. Du Moulin noted to the Sovereign of the Netherlands, Prince William of Orange, that “this intestine pestilence has in just a few years time done more damage than foreign wars were to cause in many ages.” A2. 12 Du Moulin, Anatome, A3, A5. Du Moulin impudently remarked, “For I had rather that godly and learned men should find in me want of prudence then accuse me of negligence.” A3. See Klauber, “Defender of the Faith,” 230.

45

46

Matthew Scott Harding

pride, teaching that man can separate himself, convert himself, and that God is bound and indebted to give him sufficient grace,” and all the while “vexing men’s consciences with careful doubting” of the very assurance of that self-generated salvation.13 Du Moulin was confident therefore that his asserting himself in the dialogue with the Arminians and those interested at Dort might produce a theological corrective that would benefit the deceived and misled souls within the Church and University. He stated, “For God (such is His goodness) uses vices themselves to stir up virtues which grow slothful in idleness; for zeal and piety being provoked do increase even as the fire of the smith’s furnace decaying, is set back on fire by water poured on it.”14 Du Moulin began his treatise much like a doctor would assess the symptoms of a sick patient. First, he diagnosed what he believed was the prevailing ailment within Arminianism, namely Arminius’s view of God’s passive nature within election and reprobation, and then he presents several remedies—biblical and logical by nature—which should correct the stubborn disease of pride and willful ignorance as identified with Arminius. Du Moulin asserted, “For in the questions of Providence and Predestination that [Arminian] opinion is wont to be most acceptable among the common people which measure the counsels of God by the counsels of men and put upon God human affections [reactions].”15 He continued, “But when concerning this doctrine diverse men think diversely, yet Arminius alone has attained [understood] the nature of predestination less than any other and does stumble greatly in the very entrance.”16 Du Moulin’s main argument was that Arminius confused the very doctrine of predestination with the doctrine of providence. Furthermore, instead of allowing Scripture to inform his understanding of the eternal decrees of God in election and reprobation, Arminius cloaked God’s permissive will within providence with God’s active will in predestination. Specifically, Du Moulin held that Arminius dreadfully syncretized the legal rules of justice—i.e., the judging or rewarding of men for their actions as demonstrated in civil or moral law—with God’s salvific justice in the electing of souls, resulting in a distorted, man-centered, merit-based salvation (election). Du Moulin explained: By these things it is plain that Arminius does not understand what the decree of predestination was. For the decree of predestination is that which God has appointed 13 Du Moulin, Anatome, 495. Du Moulin added, “Surely Satan therefore puffs these men up with pride that they may be burst in pieces; he lifts them on high that being cast down he might more grievously break them and crush them to pieces,” 496. 14 Du Moulin, Anatome, A5. 15 Du Moulin, Anatome, A2. 16 Du Moulin, Anatome, 85. Italics added.

A Voice Among the Restricted French Delegates of Dort

what He will do with us, and NOT what He would have us DO. Untowardly therefore does Arminius place among the decrees of God that will of God whereby He has appointed those to be saved who shall believe, seeing that in this will the commandment of God is included. Arminius himself in the same place comprehends predestination under [the banner of] providence and makes predestination a species or part of providence.17

Du Moulin began his treatise writing on the providence of God, a providence that superintends both natural and moral law which warrants men to be judged upon their actions, knowing that sinful man willfully rebels against God and is justly punished for his sins. Accordingly, God in his providence has so created a universe where after Adam’s fall, mankind has been endowed with a free will that is irrevocably bent toward sin which naturally (actively) sins against his God, and therefore subsequently incurs God’s just wrath. For Arminius, however, because of God’s grace, man can seemingly overcome such natural bent toward sin and actively pursue a better course, a moral course that pleases God and benefits his fellow man. Such a man was to be both commended and duly rewarded according to the law, according to God’s perfect justice. Du Moulin charged that Arminius mistakenly unveiled the hidden inner-workings of God’s elective purposes in predestination within the manifest realities of God’s providence on the earth, and specifically God’s oversight in matters of legal justice and just recompense for the faithful actions of men. Arminius stated that predestination is “repugnant to the justice of God, not only in reference to that attribute denoting in God a love of righteousness and a hatred of iniquity, but also in reference to its being a perpetual and constant desire in [God] to render to everyone that which is his due.”18 Du Moulin asserted, however, that Arminius contorted man’s free will and moral ability, in matters of earthly justice and providence, to extend to man’s will and spiritual reckoning toward God, in matters of salvation. In essence, Du Moulin diagnosed Arminius as conflating what God allows in his providence on earth concerning justice, that 17 Du Moulin, Anatome, 86. Confusing or conflating the doctrine of predestination as a species of providence, Arminius stated, “Creation cannot be a way or means of reprobation according to the absolute purpose of God; because after creation was completed, it was in the power of man still to have remained obedient to the divine commands, and not to commit sin. To render this possible while God had on the one part bestowed on him sufficient strength and power, he had also on the other hand placed sufficient impediments: a circumstance most diametrically opposed to a Predestination of this description.” Jacob Arminius, “A Declaration of the Sentiments of Jacob Arminius” (Part 1), On Predestination (3), p. 11 in John D. Wagner (ed.), Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will, and the Nature of God (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 40. 18 Arminius, Declaration, 40.

47

48

Matthew Scott Harding

is, that man receives his just reward for his actions, with God correspondingly allowing man’s free will to dictate God’s elective will based on foreseen, merited faith. Du Moulin highlighted Arminius’s use of Leviticus 18:5, “the person who obeys my decrees will live in them,” as explaining his rationale for fusing the legal obligation to walk in God’s law with one’s salvific obligation to obey God’s offer of salvation by faith. This should result in God’s justice through an election instituted by man’s belief and obedience. Further, Du Moulin noted Arminius quoting a number of biblical citations in his Declaration of Sentiments such as Hebrews 6:10, Matthew 5:12, Revelation 2:10, and 2 Timothy 4:7–8 to demonstrate a salvific message that those on earth who labor well, run the race, fight the good fight, and obey God’s commandments shall be entitled to the “reward of obedience.” Arminius explained, “God has not therefore from his own absolute decree, without any consideration or regard whatever to faith and obedience, appointed any man, or determined to appoint him life eternal.”19 Du Moulin took Arminius to task for owing to man’s salvation the very justice of God as somehow obligated first to consider man’s obedience and action. Arminius clarified his position: Predestination is at variance with the first of these ideas of justice in the following manner: Because it affirms that God has absolutely willed to save certain individual men and has decreed their salvation without having the least regard to [their] righteousness or obedience. The proper inference from that is that God loves such men far more than his own justice.20

To this idea, Du Moulin responded: If therefore that speech, ‘he that believes shall be saved’ is not the decree of providence, certainly it will not be the decree of predestination—seeing that predestination is no other thing than providence restrained to the salvation or reprobation of men. This plainly appears from then on that Arminius opposes this decree which he calls evangelical to the legal decree by which is stated that ‘He that shall do these things shall live in them’ which is manifestly NOT the decree of providence, but rather the rule of justice…. And if not this, then certainly not the other, seeing the

19 Arminius, Declaration, 39. 20 Arminius, Declaration, 39.

A Voice Among the Restricted French Delegates of Dort

rules of the gospel do no more belong to the providence of God (and therefore not to predestination either) than the rules of law.21

Du Moulin declared, therefore, that Arminius had mistaken the very concept of predestination, accentuating that Arminius equated God’s justice as the necessary factor in considering man’s free will in obedience to God’s commands to believe and follow him, which would necessarily lead to eternal life. Quoting Romans 10:5, “do this and live,” Arminius contended that God’s Word forcefully encourages its readers to obey God and choose salvation toward a meaningful result based upon the promise and very character of God, a God of justice. Arminius stated, “If man is deprived of any of these qualifications, such admonitions as these cannot possibly be effective in exciting [man] to obedience,”22 an obedience which leads to salvation. Arminius continued, “Such a doctrine of predestination is contrary to the nature of man, in regard to his having been created after the Divine image in the knowledge of God and in righteousness, and in regard to his having been created with freedom of will and in regard to his having been created with a disposition and aptitude for the enjoyment of life eternal.” For Du Moulin, it seemed antithetical to Arminius that a just God would create man as an object of grace only to predetermine his future, a future without hope of eternal life, without true consideration of that man’s operation and response toward that given grace. Thus, on the face of both supralapsarian or infralapsarian explanations of the decree of predestination, Arminius rejected the Reformed understanding of this doctrine as “inconsistent with the freedom of the will, in which and with which man was created by God. For it prevents the exercise of this liberty, by binding or determining the will absolutely to one object, that is, to do this thing precisely or to do that.”23 Du Moulin, however, wasted no time in correcting Arminius’s conclusions of God employing providential means of earthly justice as a basis for God’s elective purpose in predestination, stating: “But this is the most dangerous thing, that Arminius makes the election of men to come after faith, and makes the election of God to depend upon man’s free-will; from where it comes to pass that the salvation of man is a thing merely contingent and not necessary because it depends upon a thing that is contingent and mutable, to wit, upon man’s will.”24 21 Du Moulin, Anatome, 86. Quoting Leviticus 18:5, “Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgements: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord,” Arminius equates man’s duty under God’s law with man’s duty to obey God unto salvation resulting in saving faith. The key ideal is synergistic (salvific) work as man is also an agent of salvation working under God’s grace which is likened to man’s responsibility to obey the law. 22 Arminius, Declaration, 38. 23 Arminius, Declaration, 38. 24 Du Moulin, Anatome, 88. Italics added for emphasis.

49

50

Matthew Scott Harding

Du Moulin continued, “But I deny that this can be called “election,” seeing it is rather a decree of admitting those that will come to Christ when they might not come, who (if Arminius has rightly said), first choose God and then apply themselves to Him before they are appointed to salvation by God.”25 For Du Moulin, Arminius’s idea of “election” is not election at all. It is a confusion of the very idea of God’s sovereign purpose, will, and right to choose anyone. Du Moulin affirmed, “So while the Arminians will have every particular person to be elected by God, by faith foreseen, that is, these are certainly appointed to salvation whom God foresees will come when they are called and who will persevere—these they plainly deny to be elected. For to receive all that ‘come’ is not to elect or choose anyone.”26 At stake for Du Moulin and traditional Reformed theology was Arminius’s rejection of the complete providence of God as revealed through his perfect and uncharted elective will. Explaining this theological confusion, Du Moulin pointed to Arminius’s use of seventh-century church father St. Damascene’s terminology employing the expression of the “antecedent” and “consequential” wills of God.27 Du Moulin commiserated that Arminius had not only adopted the language of St. Damascene’s bifurcated will expressed in the Divine, but incorrectly applies it to God’s action within election and reprobation. Du Moulin quoted Arminius: “The Antecedent will of God, Arminius says, is that whereby 25 Du Moulin, Anatome, 88. 26 Du Moulin, Anatome, 88. 27 John of Damascus (675–749) was an Orthodox Patriarch considered to be a Doctor of the Church and is known for his doctrine of “Mary’s Assumption” and for writing the first a summary of the dogmatic writings of the Early Church Fathers. This was the first work of systematic theology in Eastern Christianity and an important influence on later Scholastic works. His summary is entitled An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Concerning the bifurcated will of God, he stated, “One must bear in mind that God’s original wish was that all should be saved and come to His Kingdom. For it was not for punishment that He formed us but to share in His goodness, inasmuch as He is a good God. But inasmuch as He is a just God, His will is that sinners should suffer punishment. The first then is called God’s antecedent will and pleasure, and springs from Himself, while the second is called God’s consequent will and permission, and has its origin in us. And the latter is two-fold; one part dealing with matters of guidance and training, and having in view our salvation, and the other being hopeless and leading to our utter punishment, as we said above. And this is the case with actions that are not left in our hands. But of actions that are in our hands the good ones depend on His antecedent goodwill and pleasure, while the wicked ones depend neither on His antecedent nor on His consequent will, but are a concession to free-will. For that which is the result of compulsion has neither reason nor virtue in it. God makes provision for all creation and makes all creation the instrument of His help and training, yea often even the demons themselves, as for example in the cases of Job and the swine.” John of Damascus, “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” trans. S. D. F. Salmond, in Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series (Oxford: Parker, 1899; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 9:1.

A Voice Among the Restricted French Delegates of Dort

God wills anything to the reasonable creature, before all the actions of it, or before any act of creature. But the consequent will of God is that whereby He wills anything to the reasonable creature, after any one act or after many acts of the creature.”28 Thus, relating to the concept of justice, i.e. man receives what he deserves either good or bad, so Arminius conflated God’s active will in election with God’s consequential will as determined by or conditioned upon “one act or many acts of the reasonable creature.”29 Quoting Arminius that there is a distinction made in God’s will by which it may be resisted “and the execution whereof may be hindered by man,” Du Moulin quipped, And here, if anywhere we may see how little constant the Arminians are. For they contend that in the ninth chapter of Romans it is spoken of as the Antecedent will of God by which God will have mercy upon some (for so they speak), that is upon such as believe, and not of His consequent will by which he determined precisely and absolutely to have mercy on this or that man.30

Du Moulin continued: And yet forgetting themselves, they say, that this Antecedent will may be resisted. Yet, notwithstanding Saint Paul in the very same place says ‘who can resist His will?’ Either therefore let the Arminians deny that this Antecedent will of God is a will at all but rather call it a wish or a desire or affection—or if he does not contend that it is a will, let him confess that it cannot be resisted.31

Emphasizing Romans 9:30 and Isaiah 46:10, Du Moulin reminded his readers that the will of God could not be resisted since God affirms himself that “My counsel shall stand and I will do all of my pleasure.” Du Moulin noted that this doctrine of God’s sovereignty in providence did not please Arminius, for Arminius was of the opinion that even God may frustrate that particular end which “He has propounded to Himself and thinks that the antecedent will of God may actually be resisted.”32 Du Moulin continued:

28 29 30 31 32

Du Moulin, Anatome, 27. Du Moulin, Anatome, 27. Du Moulin, Anatome, 33. Du Moulin, Anatome, 33. Du Moulin, Anatome, 7. Arminius is quoted by Du Moulin from his treatise against Perkins, pp. 60 and 198.

51

52

Matthew Scott Harding

Between the two wills of God, Arminius puts this difference, that the antecedent will of God may be resisted, the consequent will of God cannot. He would have it that God should be disappointed in His antecedent will and fail of its propounded end. But the consequent will of God cannot be frustrated, but it must necessarily be fulfilled. For he thinks that God does not always attain to that which He intends and that sometimes He is disappointed of that particular end which He propounds Himself. And that He is prepared to do that which from eternity He knows He shall not do—when it comes to pass that He has prepared Himself in vain and that by His consequent will which is eternal, certain, and immutable has decreed to harden those reprobates, which by His antecedent will He is prepared to mollify and convert. And He is prepared to do that which He did not decree.33

Du Moulin refuted the idea that there is any will in God that is frustrated and not decreed to perfection in eternity past. Du Moulin mockingly responded to Arminius: “It is certainly plain that this antecedent will of God is not a will but a desire and wish which God only obtains by entreaty and as much as He may, by man’s good pleasure.”34 Therefore, Arminius, said Du Moulin, “often calls this will a desire and natural affection and it is common to these sectaries to take those places (Ps. 81:14; Is. 48:18) where God is brought in speaking as one wishing and desiring and disappointed of His wish as if they were properly spoken, when these things are rather spoken by an Anthropopathy and after the manner of men.”35 Du Moulin held that it is not only absurd, but impious of Arminius to affirm that God “to whom all things from eternity are not only foreseen, but also provided for,” should intend or expect anything that from eternity he knew would not come to pass, or “to have propounded an end to Himself which He knew He should not attain.”36 Du Moulin reaffirmed the traditional Reformed belief that God, from all eternity, knows precisely who shall be damned and from all eternity whom he would save. Mankind’s salvific fate is not self-determinative, which Du Moulin, among others at Dort, clearly argued against the proponents of Arminius’s ideology. Thus, Du Moulin rejected that God would be obligated to his own natural desire or be beholden to his antecedent will which Arminius holds can be resisted or overcome by man’s will. Du Moulin continued:

33 Du Moulin, Anatome, 29. 34 Du Moulin, Anatome, 29. 35 Du Moulin, Anatome, 29. Du Moulin referred to Arminius’s argument taken from his treatise against Perkins, 196. 36 Du Moulin, Anatome, 31.

A Voice Among the Restricted French Delegates of Dort

What thing is it, that hereby there is brought in resistance between these two wills of God, the latter of which corrects the former? For by this antecedent will of God, God desires to that which from eternity He is certain He shall not do. And God is imagined doing something hardly and unwillingly and against that end which He has first intended, because Man’s will come between; by which it comes to pass—that God does not cease from that end propounded to Himself which was far better, as if by a second voyage, upon a second advice, He should obtain some secondary good. Arminius does not dissemble this, whose words are these: ‘God does seriously desire all men should be saved, but being compelled by the stubborn and incorrigible malice of some men, He will have them make loss of their salvation (Perkins 195).’ But God does nothing unwillingly, neither can He be compelled by man to change His will.37

Du Moulin asserted against Arminius that the will of God should never remain uncertain, even if the condition under which God antecedently wills anything be either fulfilled or broken. He stated, “For although the general affection of God towards all men be not made to depend on man’s will, yet according to Arminius the ‘effect thereof is uncertain until God by His consequent will has decreed to save this or that man.’”38 Du Moulin rejected any notion made by Arminius that God’s consequent will would ever depend on man’s free will or make it manifest after faith and “the right use of grace.”39 Du Moulin concluded, rejecting Arminius’s premise that God’s elective purposes are established by divine justice under his providence or in any way affected by man’s will, obedience, or faith. He stated, “And when Arminius will have all men to be elected by a conditional election, that is, so they will believe and by their free will rightly use the grace which is offered them, he lays down an election which is not an election (at all) because it is equally extended to all.”40 He continued, “Add to this that new and prodigious opinion of the Arminians whereby they think that reprobates may be saved and those which are elect may be damned, not as they are the reprobate or elect but as they are endued with power to believe and to come to salvation.”41 “But if he which is reprobate by the decree of God may actually be saved,” declared Du Moulin, “and the elect 37 38 39 40

Du Moulin, Anatome, 31. Du Moulin, Anatome, 32. Du Moulin, Anatome, 32. Du Moulin, Anatome, 87. Du Moulin continued, “He does not elect, that which one does not prefer some before others. What does this mean? That by this so-called ‘general’ election of Arminius, Simon Magnus and Simon Peter were equally elected, an election which is extended to Judas and Pharaoh” (87). 41 Du Moulin, Anatome, 89.

53

54

Matthew Scott Harding

may be damned, then it is plain that predestination (for the Arminians) is not the decree of God but a thing only in title, a floating will or a mere and bare foreknowledge; the certainty whereof depends solely upon the foreseeing of an uncertain thing, i.e. man’s free will.”42 Du Moulin on Providence and Predestination By way of a corrective to Arminius’s understanding and conflation of providence and predestination and by way of further instruction to the willing delegates of Dort, Du Moulin wrote extensively on his assessment of biblical Reformed Orthodoxy concerning God’s providence and predestination. In summary, however, Du Moulin asserted that God’s providence is a divine virtue, “the governance of all things by which God has foreknown and foreordained from eternity both the ends of all things and means tending to those ends.”43 For Du Moulin, unlike the ideals of Arminianism, God’s providence occupies the reality of God’s design for all creatures which are actualized in history because God has so ordained them, rather than God simply allowing them because He has foreseen their action or merit. In short, Du Moulin acknowledged that “God from all eternity has foreknown all things, even those that are least, but He has only pre-ordained and decreed those things which have in them some matter of good and whereby the glory of God is made more illustrious or the world more perfect,” which would extend to creation, the fall, Christ’s incarnation and redemption of mankind, and God’s hidden election of those who would be saved.44 Du Moulin likened God’s providence and justice to the two wills within God:

42 Du Moulin concluded, “If therefore the certainty of election and predestination should be made to depend upon man’s will, it might come to pass that no man should believe on Christ and so Christ had died in vain.” Du Moulin, Anatome, 89. 43 Du Moulin, Anatome, 6. 44 Du Moulin, Anatome, 7. Even sin is under the providence of God’s perfect will. Du Moulin stated, “This permission is a certain act of the divine will, seeing it is voluntary. For God does nothing unwitting or unwilling; God permits sin because He will permit it, neither had He permitted it if it had not been good that it should be permitted, for if there were not evil, it would not be known what is good, just as we should not know what light was unless there was a night; neither had His justice (whereby He punishes, nor by His mercy whereby He pardons) been made known, nor His wisdom, whereby He can draw good out of evil; not His infinite love whereby He sent His son into the world that He might die for us; not that God needs our wickedness to illustrate His glory, but because otherwise man could not come to that full felicity to which he was created” (p. 12).

A Voice Among the Restricted French Delegates of Dort

For the will of God is two-fold, the one is His decree and the other is His commandment. The decree of God belongs to the providence of God while the commandment of God belongs to His justice. By His decree, He appoints and disposes the events of things. By His commandments, He governs our actions. By the former will God appoints what He will have done (accomplished); by the latter what He would have us do. To the former, all creatures obey, even the devils themselves. To the latter, only the faithful, and yet not that perfectly.45

Du Moulin affirmed that since all the counsels or decrees of God are eternal and immutable, God could never be said to will anything new which he had not willed from eternity. Concerning the two wills of God, Du Moulin clarified that the antecedent will of God neither dominates nor is beholden to God’s consequential will which is determined before all of eternity. Du Moulin explained, “Whosever shall exactly consider this consequent will of God shall find that it is made to come after His antecedent will, not only in order but in time. For it is impossible that God should at one time desire to save all men and to damn some. And it must be that the antecedent will of God must cease as blotted and erased by His consequent will, before there can be a place for His consequent will.” Since there is no confusion in God, Du Moulin stressed that God’s consequential will reflects most accurately God’s eternal purpose, justice, and glory in predestination and salvation, though God may mercifully show his heart at times biblically through his antecedent will describing the character of God to love his creation and the souls of men. God’s heart to love the world does not obligate him to either save all mankind nor be beholden to man’s actions or desire toward salvation or his opaque concept of justice. Further, Du Moulin declared, “Predestination is therefore the decree by which in the work of our salvation God has from eternity determined what He will do with every man. Or thus: Predestination is the decree of God by which the corrupted mass of mankind He has decreed to save certain men by Christ and justly punish the rest for their sins.”46 Du Moulin held that Scripture is perspicacious on the doctrine of predestination in that God for his own purposes and based solely upon his good pleasure will elect some to salvation and not others. Contra Arminius, Du Moulin declared that man’s will, obedience, or faith have no bearing whatsoever in God’s elective purpose in predestination. Further, Du Moulin held that the doctrines of providence and predestination are separate; where providence relates to God’s oversight 45 Du Moulin, Anatome, 21. 46 Du Moulin, Anatome, 83.

55

56

Matthew Scott Harding

upon matters of creation and covenant, so Du Moulin affirmed predestination occupies the hidden work of God in salvation to accomplish his perfect purpose in electing some to salvation while allowing those justly condemned in depravity their own reprobation.47 For Du Moulin, there was no biblical premise to extend to humanity God’s legal justice for man’s obedience or faith in matters of election or reprobation, as does Arminius. Du Moulin asserted, rather, concerning the nature of the traditional Reformed doctrine of predestination that the election of God is active and based upon his mystery of purpose, “based in His glory and good pleasure while that of reprobation is passive.”48 Du Moulin emphasized in predestination God’s sovereign act of choosing and actively electing or preferring individuals as recipients of grace over the permissive reprobation of the already condemned. He stated, “For as often as some are chosen out of many, the rest are necessarily reprobated; and of them that are chosen some are preferred before others.”49 Rejecting Arminius’s premise that God decreed to give eternal life to whoever would believe, basing his election upon man’s foreseen obedience and faith, Du Moulin stated this false premise “is to be wiped out, and a place to be appointed for it in the doctrine of the gospel, and not in the eternal decree and secret predestination. And so ... when this [premise] being taken away the whole chain [of Arminianism] is broken, and as it were, one pin being drawn out, the whole joining together of that frame is loosed and dissolved.”50

47 Concerning the separation of the doctrines of Providence and Predestination, Du Moulin recognized, “We must be careful lest we patronize and maintain the wisdom and providence of God, with the damage of His justice and again lest while we defend His justice, we put out the eyes of His providence. God is not to be thought unjust, if he does anything that does not in everyway answer to the rules we have conceived in our own minds.” Du Moulin, Anatome, 2. 48 Du Moulin advised that in matters of doctrine (the undertaking and teaching of sacred doctrine)—one should focus more specifically on the revealed matters of theology and not run headlong into the secrets or mysteries of God. He states, “For God had put a great mist over the secrets of His Wisdom into which it is a sin to rush, lest while we search into His majesty, we be over pressed by His glory. It is better to understand the things that are safe, than the things that are high; and to keep God’s commandments, then to pry into His counsels. This curiosity has been the undoing of man (Proverbs 25:27).” Du Moulin, Anatome, 1. 49 Du Moulin stated, “Of this predestination there are two parts: the one is election, the other is reprobation, whereof the first does necessarily lay down the second: For as often as some are chosen out of many, the rest are necessarily reprobated; and of them that are chosen some are preferred before others.” Du Moulin, Anatome, 2. 50 Du Moulin, Anatome, 87.

A Voice Among the Restricted French Delegates of Dort

The Will of God in Election Concerning God’s will in election, Du Moulin remarked, But God wills nothing which He did not will from eternity. Indeed, God promises life under condition of obedience, but He decrees nothing under that doubtful condition. He does not elect Peter if he shall believe, but he elects Peter to faith that he may be saved. Neither was God only willing to preserve the Ninevites if they would be turned, but He also gave them repentance whereby they turned.51

Du Moulin reminded his readers that though God decrees his secret will, of which no man is privy, his commandments and revealed will speak clearly—instructing each man what to believe and in whom to believe. Du Moulin taught that many things are made known to the world through God’s revealed decrees and not only those things which were made manifest by certain events in redemptive history, but also many other things which God in his Word taught us shall come to pass such as the coming of Christ, the resurrection, and imminent the return of Christ. The revealed decree of God that mankind is to repent of sin and trust upon Christ as Savior and Lord is both clear and sufficient evidence of God’s heart to save and his will to save. Thus, Du Moulin strongly asserted that “Arminius therefore is deceived, in reasoning thus against Perkins that if ‘God will deny to anyone (Arminius says) necessary help to perform the act of faith, God desires that such a one should not really believe.’”52 Du Moulin continued, “Therefore God can rightly require of man what he owes and yet is not bound to give him ability of obeying and fulfilling what He commands, for God is not bound to restore to man that power which was once given and is now lost by the fault of man.”53 Du Moulin here differentiated the revealed decree and call of God to all humanity to repent and believe in Christ for salvation and hidden decree or the divine purpose of God to save some and allow others to pass into reprobation. With a focus toward the active (though secret) decree of God to effectually save Du Moulin concluded, But here I would use the fittest words, and had rather say that God decreed not to give grace to one whereby he should be converted and should believe; rather than say that God decreed that the man should be an unbeliever and impenitent. For the

51 Du Moulin, Anatome, 23. 52 Du Moulin, Anatome, 25. 53 Du Moulin, Anatome, 26.

57

58

Matthew Scott Harding

word decreeing is more fit to note out those things which God determined to do then those things which he determined not to cure [do].54

In defending the traditional Reformed understanding of providence and predestination, and in contradistinction to the errant Arminianism, Du Moulin summarized the doctrine of predestination in five tenets: First, without this doctrine, due honor cannot be given to God, nor the Christian faith made stable, “For by this doctrine of predestination, that immeasurable heap of goodness and love of God toward us, by which He loved us and respected us, before the foundations of the world were laid, do enter our minds, [and create in us for worship] a river flowing from that eternal love.”55 Second, by this doctrine of predestination, man’s merits fall to the ground and the imaginary faculty of free-will in all things pertaining to salvation vanish away. Third, the confidence [assurance] of our salvation will inevitably falter, unless it is upheld by the immutable decrees of God and not by man’s free will. Fourth, this doctrine is also a great boon to our sorrows and mitigation of all bitterness, while we consider that all things, even those that are most grievous, turn to the good of them who are called by the elective purpose of God. And last, by this doctrine we are taught to search into ourselves and to try our own consciences, to find in us, and to stir up the testimonies of our election; knowing that our own endeavor and care ought to further the election of God, and that by the way of Hell, that is by impenitency and unbelief, it is impossible to come to heaven.56

Conclusion Pierre du Moulin affected change in the Reformed Churches through his determination to correct what he believed were the flaws of the spreading heterodoxy of Arminianism and re-establish and codify traditional Reformed orthodoxy among the doctrines of providence and predestination in concert with the Synod of Dort. Concerning Du Moulin’s influence and leadership in the cause of Christ toward the Reformed Church in France, and his greater influence in the Reformed world abroad, Du Moulin’s authority and spirituality is unparalleled in seventeenth-century France.57 As the leader of the French delegation 54 55 56 57

Du Moulin, Anatome, 26. Du Moulin, Anatome, 4. Du Moulin, Anatome, 85. For France, as S. Proctor commends, “Du Moulin was undoubtedly the leading French Protestant theologian of the first half of the seventeenth century.” Proctor, 176. In agreement, Nicole

A Voice Among the Restricted French Delegates of Dort

for the Synod of Dort and his subsequent influence over the formation of orthodoxy and orthopraxy among the French Reformed churches in posterity, perhaps Gory best encapsulates Du Moulin’s achievement: “Du Moulin is the apogee of the Church’s glory and influence against the ideals of Arminianism. Feared among his Catholic adversaries and conqueror of the ‘Salmurian heresy,’ Du Moulin is the man most visible among the protestants, the greatest doctor our Church has ever had when forced to lead and live within a time of such turbulence.”58 Though Du Moulin may have only established tangential support for the Synod’s actions in Dort in absentia, his writings, preaching, and influence over the next generation of the French Reformed Church as conforming to the Canons of Dort in orthodoxy are indisputable.

Drisdelle boldly asserts that “Du Moulin was the most influential French polemicist in the first half of the seventeenth century and served as the theological head of the Huguenot movement during this period in much the same way as Beza and Calvin had before him.” Nicole M. Drisdelle, “Protestant Polemic in Post-Edict France: Pierre DuMoulin and the Seventeenth Century Huguenot World, 1598–1625” (PhD diss., The University of Guelph, 2010), 5. 58 Gory, Pierre du Moulin, 57. Is it possible that the French delegates and Du Moulin specifically had as much impact on the Synod of Dort as that of the synod had upon the French Reformed Churches? The synod and subsequent Canons of Dort had a tremendous impact on the Huguenot church, given that they were ratified by the French national synods already by 1620. Indeed, the French Reformed Church was the only body outside the Netherlands to officially accept the Canons of Dort early on. Cf. K. Maag, “Impact amid absence: The Synod of Dordt and the French Huguenots,” In die Skriflig, 52, no. 2 (2010): a2340.

59

Dan Borvan

4.

Pierre du Moulin’s Use of Scripture and Tradition in the Arminian Controversy

This chapter examines Pierre du Moulin’s use of Scripture and tradition in the Arminian controversy to gain a fuller understanding of anti-Remonstrant polemics. Du Moulin’s Anatomy of Arminianism (Anatome Arminianismi), published after the close of the Synod of Dort in 1619, though it was written prior to the synod’s commencement, contains his fullest evaluation of the Remonstrants’ position. His initial offering in the Arminian Controversy, however, was a portion of the 1612 Declaration ... in the cause of Conradus Vorstius, written under the name of King James.1 In both works, Du Moulin argued that the doctrines of the Remonstrants did not conform to Scripture, reason, or church tradition. He followed the mainstream Reformed approach of using sola Scriptura to defend the Reformed position and to attack that of his opponents, while viewing the Church Fathers not as vindication par excellence of their confession but as reliable secondary authorities in support of the Reformed interpretation of Scripture. Declaration Against Vorstius Pierre du Moulin assisted King James in the latter’s attempt to convince the University of Leiden to remove Conradus Vorstius from his post as the successor to Jacob Arminius. Du Moulin, the leading polemicist of the French Reformed Churches in the first half of the seventeenth century, wanted to earn the favor of the most powerful Protestant monarch in Europe while expanding his international reputation. Vorstius published a second edition to his Tractatus Theologicus de Deo in 1610 and a reprint of Faustus Socinus’s De Auctoritate Sacrae Scripturae in 1611,

1 James I, Declaration du Serenissime Roy de la Grand Bretaigne, sur ses actions devers les Estats Generaux des Pays bas-unis, touchant le faict de Contadus Vorstius [His Majesties Declaration concerning his proceedings with the States generall of the United Provinces of the Low Countreys in the cause of D. Conradus Vorstius] (London, 1612). Du Moulin produced multiple works on behalf of James. Vorstius was dismissed from Leiden in 1612 and was condemned as a heretic by the Synod of Dort and banished from the territory of the States-General.

62

Dan Borvan

to which he wrote a preface.2 The Vorstius affair consumed King James during the autumn and winter of 1611 and 1612, beginning when James received a copy of Vorstius’s Tractatus from Archbishop of Canterbury George Abbot on August 31, 1611.3 Isaac Casaubon, the French classical scholar living in England, recorded in his diary that most of his conversation with the king on September 16, 1611, involved the Vorstius heresy.4 James opposed Vorstius because he believed that the German’s heresies would weaken his Dutch allies and eventually spread to Great Britain. He also recognized an opportunity to bolster his reputation as a zealous Defender of the Faith by challenging a theologian deemed heretical by both Catholics and Protestants.5 James lobbied the Dutch through Ralph Winwood, ambassador at The Hague. On the same evening that he received Vorstius’s book, James wrote to Winwood and instructed him to inform the Dutch that Vorstius had published “monstrous blasphemy and horrible Atheisme.” James, as Defender of the Faith, deemed the book worthy to be burned and Vorstius “most severely punished.” Having heard that the majority of the Dutch states approved Vorstius to succeed Arminius at Leiden, the king warned “how infinitly We shalbe displeased if such a Monster receive advancement in the Church.”6 In Winwood’s speech to the States-General, he explained that Vorstius held “various fantastical opinions…against the orthodox belief of our religion.”7 The king had read Vorstius’s book and found it “full of blasphemy, heresy, and atheism.”8 King James asserted his self-appointed role as leader of Reformed Protestantism in Europe in a letter to the States-General on October 6, 1611. He expressed hope that the states would extirpate the “Atheismes and Heresies, and to the satisfaction not onely of us, but of all the reformed Churches, who have bene hitherto extremely scandalized therewith.” But if they refused to expel those who promoted ideas

2 Vorstius, Tractatus Theologicus de Deo (Steinfurt, 1610); Socinus and Vorstius, De Auctoritate Sacrae Scripturae (Steinfurt, 1611). 3 James, His Majesties Declaration concerning His Proceedings with the States generall ... in the cause of D. Conradus Vorstius, 3. 4 Isaac Casaubon, Ephemerides, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1850), 2:880. 5 Eric Platt, Britain and Bestandstwisten: The Causes, Course and Consequences of British Involvement in the Dutch Religious and Political Disputes of the Early Seventeenth Century (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 50. 6 The National Archives (hereafter TNA), SP 84/68 f. 117r. 7 TNA SP 84/68 f. 133r: “diverses opinions fantasticques ... contra l’orthodoxe créance de notre Religion.” 8 TNA SP 84/68 f. 133r: “tout plein du blasphemie, heresie, et atheisme.”

Pierre du Moulin’s Use of Scripture and Tradition in the Arminian Controversy

contrary to the beliefe of the true Catholike Church, We shall then bee constrained (in our great griefe) publikely to protest against these abominations; and (as God hath honoured Us with the Title of Defender of the faith) not onely to depart and separate ourselves from the union of such false and hereticall Churches, but also to exhort all other reformed Churches to joyne with Us in a Common Councell, how to extinguish and remaund to help these abominable Heresies.9

James thus demonstrated to the States-General what Casaubon called his “vehemence of zeal” to extend peace through doctrine beyond Great Britain to all churches in all countries.10 James presented an entire volume against Vorstius to the States-General in February 1612 that included excerpts from Vorstius’s writings, copies of James’s letters, and Winwood’s speeches to the States-General.11 James’s Declaration was published in Latin, English, Dutch, and French. In April 1612, the States of Holland ordered Vorstius to move to the city of Gouda for one year. He remained on study leave, receiving a professor’s salary, until he resigned in May 1619. The Vorstius affair finally ended one month later when the Synod of Dort banished Vorstius from Holland in June 1619.12 King James displayed in the Vorstius affair what Isaac Casaubon asserted to Cardinal Jacques Davy du Perron; he had a right to the title of catholic because he defended the orthodox faith as a would-be Constantine who could reunite Christendom. Even Catholics acknowledged his assault against heresy. Antonio Foscarini, the Venetian ambassador in England, wrote to the Doge and the Senate: “Turning to the discourse he had recently published against Vorstius, he [James] said that he had defended therein the faith that is called Roman quite as much as any other creed of Christians; I replied that in truth his Majesty could not have spoken in more Catholic terms nor with greater piety; and that is actually the case. I praised his eloquence and lively style of presentation; his profound ideas. This pleased his Majesty.”13 The importance of the Vorstius affair to King James is revealed in the full title of the English edition of the judgments of the Synod of Dort, published by Royal Printer John Bill: The Judgement of the Synode Holden at Dort, Concerning the five Articles:

9 James I, Declaration concerning Vorstius, 22–23. 10 Casaubon, Ad Epistolam Illustr. et Reverendiss. Cardinalis Perronii, Responsio (London, 1612), 4: “zeli vehementia.” 11 James I, Declaration concerning Vorstius. 12 The Judgement of the Synode Holden at Dort (London, 1619), 105–6. 13 Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 12, 1610–1613, ed. Horatio F. Brown (London, 1906), 306.

63

64

Dan Borvan

As also their sentence touching Conradus Vorstius. The Latin, French, and Dutch editions make no mention of Vorstius in the title. Although the Declaration concerning Vorstius was published under James’s own name, Pierre du Moulin is likely responsible for the final form of the work. Du Moulin wrote under James’s name on other occasions and also had a personal interest in the matter, having served as Professor of Philosophy at Leiden in the 1590s.14 The first printing of the volume was done in Paris, an unusual occurrence for a publication by an English king. It probably was printed on the press that was once in Du Moulin’s home but had been moved to either the English embassy or to the home of Thomas Edmondes, English ambassador in Paris.15 Also, the methodology of the work resembles that of Du Moulin’s other polemical writings. Du Moulin (and James) made no pretense that Vorstius was within the bounds of the Reformed confession or even orthodox Christianity, calling him a “blasphemous Monster” and a man “convinced of an infinite number of heresies.”16 Du Moulin’s primary concern was not to refute Vorstius with careful exegesis of biblical texts but to argue from church tradition that the German theologian had abandoned the catholic faith. He took up the weapon of church tradition that Roman Catholics had used so often against him and used it to denounce the Remonstrant. He directed most of his focus to Vorstius’s understanding of the Trinity, but he did address Vorstius’s teaching on the “nature and workes of God ad extra.” Du Moulin refrained from outlining the implications of Vorstius’s views on the nature of God for his doctrine of election and providence until he was writing under his own name and not the king’s. Against the claim that Vorstius was not actually heretical but merely careless with his use of theological language, Du Moulin said, “It is in no sort lawfull to speake of those great Mysteries of the Essence of God, of the Trinitie, of the hypostaticall union of natures in the Person of Christ, or any such high points, unless we use the same phrases and manner of speech, which the Church of God hath alwayes used in speaking of the said Mysteries.”17 Vorstius, however, rejected the ancient creeds of the church and adopted the evasive character of the “ancient Heretiques, and namely of Arrius, and Paulus Samosatenus, when they saw themselves pinched with the arguments of the Orthodox Church, and had no power to resist.”18 Du Moulin learned from his interactions with Roman 14 See James I, Declaration du roy Jacques I pour le droit des rois et independence de leurs couronnes contre Cardinal du Perron (London, 1615). 15 See Brian G. Armstrong, Bibliographia Molinæi: An Alphabetical, Chronological and Descriptive Bibliography of the Works of Pierre du Moulin (1568–1658) (Geneva: Droz, 1997), 151–52. 16 James I, Declaration concerning Vorstius, 25, 34. 17 James I, Declaration concerning Vorstius, 56. 18 James I, Declaration concerning Vorstius, 75–76.

Pierre du Moulin’s Use of Scripture and Tradition in the Arminian Controversy

Catholic apologists, who often connected Protestants to known heretics, and linked Vorstius with the two ancient heretics, along with more recent heretics, including the notorious Anabaptist, John of Leiden. Du Moulin believed that Vorstius’s rejection of the ancient creeds and his resemblance to notable heretics made him worthy of condemnation. Vorstius was dismissed by the University of Leiden in 1612 and condemned by the Synod of Dort in 1619; the States-General consequently exiled him from the Dutch Republic. Anatome Arminianismi Du Moulin initially proposed his plan for the reunion of Christendom in a 1613 letter to King James. The French pastor called for the composition of a joint confession which avoided issues that were not necessary to salvation, including the “subtile opinions proposed by Arminius on free will, the perseverance of the saints, and predestination.”19 This clause remained in the plan when it was brought before the French National Synods in 1614 and 1617 (Tonneins and Vitré).20 This clause was omitted, however, in Du Moulin’s 1618 letter to Carleton, the contents of which made it to the Synod of Dort. In that final version, Du Moulin called for the joint confession to avoid issues of polity and ecclesiastical discipline but did not suggest the exclusion of doctrine concerning free will, perseverance of the saints, or predestination.21 Du Moulin apparently recognized by late 1617 that the Remonstrants could not be welcomed to the table to compose this hypothetical joint confession of the Reformed churches. Despite his lofty goal of uniting all of Protestantism, Du Moulin declared his opposition to any form of concession to or compromise with the Remonstrants and maintained that the confessional integrity of the Reformed churches outweighed any potential benefits of a counterfeit union with Arminians. No quarter would be given to those who “violently carried with the itching of their own cleverness, run beyond the bounds of the word of God.”22 In a letter to English Secretary of State Dudley Carleton on December 22, 1618, Pierre du Moulin stated that an assembly as notable as the Synod of Dort “ought not to be content with appeasing the troubles of the Church of the 19 TNA SP 78/61 f. 68r: “opinions subtiles proposees par Arminius sur le franc arbiter, sur la perseverance des Saincts, et sur la Predestination.” 20 Printed in Quick, Synodicon, I, 434–37; Aymon, Tous les synodes, II, 57–62. 21 TNA SP 84/87 f. 111. 22 Du Moulin, Anatome Arminianismi (London, 1619), 1: “prurigine ingenii correpti ultra verbi divini metas excurrunt.”

65

66

Dan Borvan

Low Countries, but also must prevent future evils and establish an order that can prevent such inconvenience from arising hereafter, not only in the Low Countries, but also everywhere else.”23 Du Moulin proposed that the delegates to the synod compose a joint confession that contained the points of doctrine that all could affirm. This new confession would be drawn from the confessions of all the represented churches and would act as the “cement of our union.”24 Pierre du Moulin completed Anatome Arminianismi by early 1618, yet publication was delayed by his fellow Parisian pastors and the French synod, who feared that the volume would prejudge the Remonstrants prior to the international synod.25 When the book finally was published in the autumn of 1619, Du Moulin commended the Synod of Dort and stated that there had been no synod “more famous, more holy, nor more profitable to the church.”26 Scripture Du Moulin used his primary weapon, sola Scriptura, both positively and negatively, against the Arminians. Similar to his approach against Roman Catholics, he defended the Reformed position with brief quotations and expositions of Scripture, but rarely, if ever, with detailed exegesis. For example, to explain the apparent paradox between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility Du Moulin quoted more than ten passages of Scripture but offered little explanation.27 He concluded the section with a lengthy passage from Augustine in support of his position.28 Du Moulin also used Scripture on the offensive against the Remonstrant position, giving a clear explanation of a passage and demonstrating his opponents’ error. He declared, “It is necessary that all doctrine in the matter of salvation

23 TNA SP 84/87 f. 111r: “ne se doit pas contenter l’appaises les troubles de l’eglise des pays bas, mais aussi doit prevenir le maux futurs et etablis un ordre que puisse empescher qu’un tel inconvenient ne puisse arriver cy apres, non seulement en pays bas, mais aussi par tous ailleurs.” 24 TNA SP 84/87 f. 111r: “le ciment de nostre union.” Printed in Dudley Carleton, The Letters from and to Sir Dudley Carleton ... during his Embassy in Holland, from January 1615/16 to December 1620 (London: 1780), 325–6. 25 Donald Sinnema, “French Reformed Churches, Arminianism, and the Synod of Dort,“ in Martin I. Klauber, ed., Theology of the French Reformed Churches (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 98–136. 26 Du Moulin, Anatome, iijv: “nec celebrior, nec sanctior, nec Ecclesiae utilior.” 27 Du Moulin, Anatome, 301. 28 Du Moulin, Anatome, 302.

Pierre du Moulin’s Use of Scripture and Tradition in the Arminian Controversy

which does not rest on the testimony of Scripture shall fall.”29 Addressing the Remonstrant position on the free will of the unregenerate man, Du Moulin asserted, “If they stand here in judgement of holy Scripture, there will be no place for doubting.”30 Sadly, for Du Moulin, the Remonstrants left Scripture “depraved.”31 Reason Reason served as Du Moulin’s secondary weapon against the Arminians, for “holy Scripture is supported by reason.”32 Du Moulin, the former philosophy professor, who had written a volume on Aristotelian logic, demonstrated the logical inconsistency of the Arminian position. “They so implicate themselves,” said Du Moulin, “that they appear either to desire not to be understood or they distrust with their own cause.”33 For example, Arminius said that election is of those that believe. Du Moulin countered, “But the dead ceased to believe. Therefore, Arminius ought to say, that he might be consistent to himself, that election is of those that cease to believe, and not of those that truly believe.”34 The Arminians’ unreasonable interpretation of Scripture forced them to rely solely upon human reason: “Driven from holy Scripture, they fly to their reasons. Just as they use Scripture without reason, so they urge reasons without Scripture.”35 This sounds remarkably similar to his statement against Catholics in Apologie pour la saincte Cène. In some cases, according to Du Moulin, Catholics and Arminians employed their reason against Scripture. In other cases, they employed Scripture against reason. “In the first there is rashness, in the second there is obstinacy; error in the one and in the other,” he concluded.36 Du Moulin’s treatment of Arminian universal sufficient grace demonstrates his critique of their exegesis and reason. He said that Deuteronomy 29:4 (“The 29 Du Moulin, Anatome, 329: “necesse est concidat omnis doctrina in salutis negotio, quæ non nititur Scripturæ testimonio.” 30 Du Moulin, Anatome, 267: “Hic si statur iudicio sacræ scripturæ, nullus erit dubitandi locus.” 31 Du Moulin, Anatome, 314. 32 Du Moulin, Anatome, 145: “Scripturæ sacræ ratio ipsa suffragatur.” 33 Du Moulin, Anatome, 144: “ita ipsi se implicant, ut vel nolle intelligi, vel causæ suæ diffidere videantur.” 34 Du Moulin, Anatome, 145: “at mortui desierunt credere: Debuit ergo Arminius, ut sibi ipse constaret, dicere electionem esse eorum qui desierunt credere: non vero credentium.” 35 Du Moulin, Anatome, 224: “Excussi sacra scriptura confugiunt ad rationes. Quemadmodum utuntur scripture sine ratione, ita pugnant rationibus sine scriptura.” 36 Du Moulin, Apologie, 29r: “Au premier il a de la temerité, au second de l’obstination, de l’erreur en l’un et en l’autre.”

67

68

Dan Borvan

Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear”) drove Johannes Arnoldi Corvinus, Remonstrant pastor in Leiden, to fits as he tried to explain the obvious contradiction within the Arminian system.37 With his “ridiculous acumen,” Arnoldus claimed that God was willing to give the Israelites a heart to understand and eyes to see and ears to hear, but he was hindered by the Israelites themselves. “Therefore,” said Du Moulin, “they were able to obey God, before he had given them a heart. But to obey, that is itself to have a heart, therefore, they were able to have a heart before they had a heart…. He should say, God has not given them a heart because they were without a heart, as if the physician would not heal a blind man because the blind man would not see the physician coming.”38 The Arminians, with their lack of consistency, served as their own worst enemy, said Du Moulin. Although they condemned irresistible grace, which they portrayed as a “monster whose beard they pluck and whom they prick with needles and sticks,” Arminians actually upheld a form of irresistibility.39 According to Du Moulin, Arminians maintained that the Holy Spirit can bring conversion by extraordinary means, including means that cannot be resisted. Du Moulin said, “Here we have them confessing themselves guilty. For by this saying, whatever they have built up they overthrow from the foundation. For if God converts certain men irresistibly, and gives them faith by His precise and absolute will, it is impossible that these should be elected for foreseen faith and by an election which rests on the foreseeing of faith. For he who is absolutely and irresistibly appointed to faith, must be absolutely appointed to salvation.”40 Thus, Du Moulin repeatedly used reason and a reasonable interpretation of Scripture against his Reformed Protestant opponents. Tradition Du Moulin’s tertiary and perhaps his most intriguing weapon was ecclesiastical tradition. He made it clear that tradition rested on the foundation of Scripture 37 Du Moulin, Anatome, 333. 38 Du Moulin, Anatome, 333–34: “Ergo poterant obsequi Deo antequam Deus eis dedisset cor: at illus ipsum obsequi est cor habere: ergo poterant cor habere antequam cor haberent: ... Perinde ergo agit ac si diceret, Deum non dedisse eis cor quia errant sine corde: veluti si medicus nollet sanare cæcum, quia noluit medicum venientem aspicere.” 39 Du Moulin, Anatome, 392: “monstrum cui barbam vellicant et quod acu et stilo compungunt.” 40 Du Moulin, Anatome, 392: “Hoc enim dicto quicquid ædificaverunt à fundamento subuertunt. Si enim Deus conuertit quosdam irresistibiliter, eisque dat fidem voluntati præcisa absoluta, impossibile est hos esse electos ex fide præuisa, electione quæ innitatur preuisioni fidei. Nam qui absolutem destinatus est ad fidem et irresistibiliter, oportet absolutem destinatus sit ad salutem.”

Pierre du Moulin’s Use of Scripture and Tradition in the Arminian Controversy

and was subject to reason and experience. The Arminians stood “against the doctrine of the orthodox church, which strips from man all free will in the work of salvation, supported by the word of God, and confirmed by sense itself and experience.”41 The Arminian doctrine of universal sufficient grace “pulls up the Christian faith by the roots, and is opposed to Scripture and experience.”42 Du Moulin looked to the Church Fathers for confirmation of his own scriptural interpretation. As with his anti-Catholic works, Augustine was his favorite author to cite.43 Regarding Augustine’s campaign against the Pelagians, Du Moulin said, “Therefore, we are indebted, after God, to the wit and industry of so great a man, that this deadly plague was expelled from the bowels of the church.”44 Du Moulin concluded that John 12:40 (“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart”) refers to later sins being the punishment for former sins, as “Augustine teaches throughout book 5 against Julian.”45 In addition to Augustine, Du Moulin referred to Jerome, Chrysostom, and Ambrose, and even sought support from Thomas Aquinas, whom he often paired with Augustine.46 In his works against Roman Catholics, Du Moulin used Thomas to attack his opponents but rarely to bolster his own position.47 Since Arminians did not revere Thomas as the premier doctor of the church, unlike post-Tridentine Roman Catholics, Du Moulin could employ him for confirmation of the Calvinist interpretation of Scripture in engaging these opponents. In addition to using church tradition and the Fathers to advance his own cause, Du Moulin condemned Arminianism by associating it with known errors from church history. Arminians, “who care nothing about whom they imitate, find someone who might provide protection for their errors.”48 Unfortunately for them, they chose poorly. Du Moulin pointed out that Arminius adopted the teaching of John of Damascus on the antecedent and consequent wills of God. According to Du Moulin, this doctrine was a “fiction and insult to God.”49 But 41 Du Moulin, Anatome, 284: “In doctrinam Orthodoxæ Ecclesiæ, quæ hominem irregenitum omni libero arbitrio in negotio salutis exuit, fultam Dei verbo et sensu ipso ac experientiam comprobatam.” 42 Du Moulin, Anatome, 329: “Christianem fidem à stirpe conuellit, et scripturæ ac experientiæ aduersatur.” 43 Du Moulin, Anatome, 24, 30, 35, 39, 60, 172, 221, 274, 298, 299, 302, 348, 349, 350, 352. 44 Du Moulin, Anatome, 348: “Debemus ergo, post Deum, viri tanti ingenio et industriæ quod exitialis hæc pestis ab Ecclesiæ visceribus depulsa est.” 45 Du Moulin, Anatome, 12: “docet prolixem Augustinus lib. 5 aduersus Iulianum.” 46 Du Moulin, Anatome, 221, 255. 47 He was critical at some points, though, of Thomas and the Schoolmen. Du Moulin, Anatome, 22. 48 Du Moulin, Anatome, 49: “quibus nihil pensi est quos imitentur, dum aliquid inueniant quod faciat ad præsidium erroris sui.” 49 Du Moulin, Anatome, 113: “figmentum, et rem in Deum contumeliosam.”

69

70

Dan Borvan

Arminius made it one of his chief doctrines and “as often as he is threatened by us, he creeps into this den like a lizard into a thicket.”50 Du Moulin also linked Arminianism to Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, which were much more damaging associations than John of Damascus. Du Moulin stated, “Now it cannot be doubted, out of what pits they have drawn their ideas, and which of the ancient heretics they have proposed for themselves to imitate.”51 Du Moulin quoted Prosper of Aquitaine’s letter to Augustine, which is contained within Augustine’s collected works, regarding semi-Pelagianism (the universal extent of Christ’s atonement and election based on foreseen faith) and concluded, “This is pure Arminianism, the same opinion; we are assaulted with the same calumnies as Augustine.”52 He went on to say that in the Epistle of Prosper “you will plainly recognise the Arminian vein, and Arminianism graphically depicted.”53 Du Moulin said that if the title and author of the work were not known, anyone would think that the letter was written against Arminians. After recounting the semi-Pelagian teaching on foreseen faith and the universal extent of the atonement, Du Moulin concluded, “This is pure Arminianism, except Arminians clothe themselves more attractively and paint themselves with costly colours, and use the word merit more sparingly.”54 In response to Arnoldus’s accusation that Reformed doctrine makes ministers sluggish in their ministry because their diligence only affects those whom God has predestined to save, Du Moulin said, “The Pelagians objected the same things to Augustine.”55 Du Moulin addressed free will in a chapter entitled “Objections which Arminians borrow from Pelagians and Papists answered.”56 He recounted the Arminians’ charge that, according to Calvinist doctrine, an unregenerate man necessarily sins and does nothing but sin. Those promoting free will argue that an act committed necessarily cannot be classified as sin because it cannot be avoided. Du Moulin retorted, “This Pelagian cabbage, the sectarians repeat 50 Du Moulin, Anatome, 25: “quoties urgetur à nostris, in hanc latebram ut lacertus in dumeta correpit.” 51 Du Moulin, Anatome, 350: “Ut iam non possit esse dubium ex quibus lacunis sua hauserint, et quos veterum hæreticorum sibi imitandos proposuerint.” 52 Du Moulin, Anatome, 149: “Hic quidem merus est Arminianismus: eadem sententia: calumniis incessimur quibus Augustinus.” 53 Du Moulin, Anatome, 350: “Ibi sane plane agnosces Arminianam venam, et Arminianismum graphic depictum.” 54 Du Moulin, Anatome, 352: “Hic quidem merus est Arminianismus, nisi quod Arminiani sua speciosius vestiunt et conquisitis coloribus fucant, et parcius ut utor voce meriti.” 55 Du Moulin, Anatome, 172: “Eadem obiiciebant Pelagiani Augustino.” 56 Du Moulin, Anatome, 293: “Soluuntur obiectiones quas Arminiani à Pelagianis et Pontificiis mutuantur.”

Pierre du Moulin’s Use of Scripture and Tradition in the Arminian Controversy

to us and sing the same song a thousand times.”57 After quoting Augustine’s opposition to Celestius, a Pelagian, over the same subject, Du Moulin said, “Therefore, in Arminius we have Pelagius resurrected.”58 Concerning universal grace, Du Moulin argued that Arminians “distance themselves very little from Pelagians.”59 Lest he be seen as an “enemy of grace,” Pelagius credited grace for every good work done by man. However, by grace he “understood nature itself, because it was established by God.”60 Arminius distinguished between nature and universal grace but made it clear that God gave nature and grace to all men. Everyone, according to Arminius, possesses the sufficient grace to obtain faith and, thus, salvation. Du Moulin concluded that “Pelagius confuses nature with grace, but Arminius unites nature and grace.”61 By linking Arminians with Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, Du Moulin attempted to discredit his opponents while also demonstrating to Calvinists the severity of the Arminian error. Therefore, the Arminian Controversy was no small intra-Reformed debate. Conclusion Although King Louis XIII barred Pierre du Moulin and his French Reformed colleagues from attending the Synod of Dort, the Parisian pastor still played a significant role in the Arminian Controversy within the Reformed churches. He sought to prove that Arminianism was a damnable heresy, on par with Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, and not simply an alternative approach to Reformed theology. In his works against Arminians, Du Moulin used Scripture, reason, and church tradition to refute his opponents and to support his own position. He followed the mainstream Reformed approach of using sola Scriptura, while employing the Church Fathers as reliable secondary authorities in support of the Reformed interpretation of Scripture, but not as vindication par excellence of the Reformed confession.

57 Du Moulin, Anatome, 294: “Hanc Pelagianam crambin nobis reponunt sectarii, et millies eadem occinunt.” 58 Du Moulin, Anatome, 298: “Ergo in Arminio habemus rediuiuum Pelagium.” 59 Du Moulin, Anatome, 327: “perexiguo discrimine à Pelagianis distare.” 60 Du Moulin, Anatome, 327: “intelligebat ipsam naturam, quippe quæ à Deo esset condita.” 61 Du Moulin, Anatome, 327: “Pelagius naturam confundit cum gratia, sed Arminius naturam et gratiam sociat.”

71

Theological Perspectives

Greg A. Salazar

5.

Defending Calvinism in England Before and After Dort

In recent decades, much scholarly attention has been given to the reception of Arminianism in England in the wake of Nicholas Tyacke’s seminal essay “Puritanism, Arminianism, and the Counter-Revolution” and his monograph Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism, c.1590–1640.1 In both these works, Tyacke argued that Calvinism was the “common and ameliorating bond” for English Protestants for nearly a century before being challenged by “the rise of Arminianism” in the 1620s and 1630s.2 Although Tyacke’s thesis was contested by some scholars, it set in motion roughly two decades of revisionist scholarship that shed further light on the reception of Arminianism in England.3 1 This chapter is a revised and abbreviated treatment of some of the topics touched on in my PhD dissertation. For a full treatment of these themes, see Greg Salazar, “Daniel Featley and Calvinist Conformity in Early Stuart England” (PhD diss., Cambridge University, 2018), chapters 2 and 4. 2 Nicholas Tyacke, “Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-Revolution,” in The Origins of the English Civil War, ed. Conrad Russell (London: Macmillan, 1973), 121. Tyacke’s argument was originally put forward in his PhD thesis, “Arminianism in England in Religion and Politics, 1604–1640” (PhD thesis, London University, 1968), which was eventually published as Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism (Oxford University Press, 1987). For other variations and agreements with Tyacke’s argument, see Patrick Collinson, The Religion of the Protestants: The Church in English Society 1559–1625 (Oxford University Press, 1982); Kenneth Fincham, Prelate as Pastor: The Episcopate of James I (Oxford University Press, 1990); Anthony Milton, Catholic and Reformed: The Reformed and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought, 1600–1640 (Cambridge University Press, 1995); Tom Webster, Godly Clergy in Early Stuart England: The Caroline Puritan Movement (Cambridge University Press, 1997); Peter Lake, The Boxmaker’s Revenge: ‘Orthodoxy,’ ‘Heterodoxy,’ and the Politics of the Parish in Early Stuart London (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2001); David Como, Blown by the Spirit: Puritanism and the Emergence of an Antinomian Underground in Pre–CivilWar England (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2004); and David Como, “Puritans, Predestination and the Construction of Orthodoxy in Early Seventeenth-Century England,” in Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c. 1560–1660, ed. Peter Lake and Michael Questier (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2000), 64–87. 3 Peter White was arguably Tyacke’s most forthright critic. See Peter White, Predestination, Policy, and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War (Cambridge University Press, 1992). For the famous debate between Peter White and Nicholas Tyacke see Peter White, “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” Past and Present 101 (1983): 34–54; Peter White, “Debate: The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered: A Rejoinder,” Past and Present 115 (1987): 217–29. Nicholas Tyacke, “Debate: The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” Past and Present 115 (1987): 201–16; William Lamont, “Comment: The Rise

76

Greg A. Salazar

In particular, some scholarly analysis has been given to the figures and events surrounding the involvement of the British delegation at the Synod of Dort, which included George Carleton, John Davenant, William Balcanquall, Samuel Ward, and Thomas Goad, as well as the synod itself.4 In the years leading up to and immediately following the Synod of Dort, there was also significant discourse regarding the doctrinal, ecclesiastical, and political relationship between the English and the Dutch. Building on previous scholarship, this chapter will explore how through two crucial events, English Calvinists opposed the growing anti-Calvinist movement in England by aligning themselves with and steering the English Church toward established Calvinist orthodoxy. First, this essay will analyze how English Calvinists opposed the growing anti-Calvinist movement through a series of works published in 1626. In these works, they depicted anti-Calvinist doctrine as Pelagian, Arminian, and pastorally hazardous. Second, it will explore how English Calvinists used James I’s engagement with international Calvinism to bolster Calvinism in England both before and after the Synod of Dort. This will be done first by examining James’s opposition to the Remonstrant Conrad Vorstius’s appointment to the chair of theology, which had recently opened because of Jacob Arminius’s death in 1609.5 Then, it will analyze how English Calvinists, after James’s death in 1625, attempted to resist the growing anti-Calvinist movement by claiming James for the Calvinist cause, drawing on the memory of the late king’s earlier support of Calvinism and his opposition to Vorstius. In these ways, this essay explores how ecclesiastical, political, and even pastoral motivations could be intertwined in of Arminianism Reconsidered,” Past and Present 107 (1985): 227–31. Peter Lake, “Calvinism and the English Church 1570–1635,” Past and Present 114 (1987): 32–76. For similar views as White, see Mark Kishlansky, “Charles I: A Case of Mistaken Identity,” Past and Present 189 (2005): 41–80; Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1992); Kevin Sharpe, “The Personal Rule of Charles I,” in Before the English Civil War: Essays on Early Stuart Politics and Government, ed. Howard Tomlinson (London: Macmillan, 1984), 53–78; Charles Prior, Defining the Jacobean Church: The Politics of Religious Controversy, 1603–1625 (Cambridge, 2005); Judith Maltby, Prayer Book and People in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England (Cambridge University Press, 1998). 4 Aza Goudriaan, “The Synod of Dort on Arminian Anthropology,” in Revisiting the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), ed. Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 81–106; Anthony Milton, ed., The British Delegation at the Synod of Dort (1618–1619) (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2005); Jean-Louis Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century (Oxford University Press, 2009); and Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace (Oxford University Press, 2012). 5 James I, His Maiesties Declaration concerning his Proceedings with the States Generall of the United Provinces of the Low Countreys, in the Case of D. Conradus Vorstius (London: Robert Barker, 1612); and Frederick Shriver, “Orthodoxy and Diplomacy: James I and the Vorstius Affair,” The English Historical Review 85 (1970): 449–74.

Defending Calvinism in England Before and After Dort

the early Stuart church. In particular, it analyzes whether James’s involvement in ecclesiastical disputation was motivated by genuine theological conviction, political expediency, or both. Likewise, it seeks to uncover the ecclesiastical, political, and pastoral motivations that energized English Calvinists during this time. Arminianism’s Threefold Threat to English Orthodoxy Scholars have traced the inception of anti-Calvinism in England—at least in any lasting capacity—to 1624, when the anti-Calvinist Richard Montague famously replied to the Catholic John Heigham’s The Gagge of the Reformed Gospell (1623), which was an attack on the English Church’s doctrines. In Montague’s two anti-Calvinist responses—A Gagg for the New Gospell? (1624) and Appello Caesarem (1625)—he claimed that only eight or nine of Heigham’s propositions were actually genuine doctrines of the Church of England, and the rest were “raked” “out of the lay-stals of deepest Puritanisme.”6 Heigham had listed fortyseven points that he regarded as representative of the teaching of the Church of England.7 Montague was a deeply committed member of the infamous Durham House Group, which functioned as the headquarters for English anti-Calvinism for roughly a decade and opposed Calvinist activities with increasing success in the 1620s and 1630s. Montague’s works activated a litany of protests in 1626—at least ten in print—from both Puritans and other Calvinists.8 They claimed that Montague’s views diverged from the doctrinal status quo of the English Church, 6 Richard Montague, A Gagg for the New Gospell? No: a New Gagg for an Old Goose (London: Matthew Lownes and William Barrett, 1624), 2v; Richard Montague, Appello Caesarem: A Iust Appeale from Two Uniust Informers (London: Matthew Lownes, 1625). 7 John Heigham, The Gagge of the Reformed Gospell (Saint-Omer: C. Boscard, 1623). A second edition was published as The Gagge of the Reformed Gospell (Saint-Omer: C. Boscard, 1623) and a third edition as The Touch-stone of the Reformed Gospel (Saint-Omer: C. Boscard, 1634). Peter Milward, Religious Controversies in the Jacobean Age (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1978), 40. Some historians have wrongly alleged that The Gagge of the New Gospel was penned by Matthew Kellison. See Hillel Schwartz, “Arminianism and the English Parliament, 1624–1629,” Journal of British Studies 12 (1973): 44. 8 John Yates, Ibis ad Cæsarem (London: Robert Mylbourne, 1626); Daniel Featley, A Parallel: of new-old Pelagiarminian error (London: Robert Milbourne, 1626); Daniel Featley, A Second Parallel together with a Writ of Error sued against the Appealer (London: Robert Milbourne, 1626); Samuel Ward, Gratia discriminans (London: Roberti Mylbourne, 1626); and George Carleton, An Examination of those Things wherein the author of the late Appeale holdeth the Doctrines of the Pelagians and Arminians, to be the Doctrines of the Church of England (London: William Turner, 1626). This work was eventually revised and enlarged in a second edition with a rejoinder: George Carleton, The second edition, revised and enlarged by the author. Wherevnto also there is Annexed a Ioynt Attestation (London: Michael Sparkes, 1626). Walter Balcanquhall,

77

78

Greg A. Salazar

which, since the Reformation, had been predominantly Calvinistic. Moreover, in their attacks on Montague and English anti-Calvinism, English Calvinists depicted their opponents’ positions as a threefold threat to the English Church—a revival of the ancient Pelagian heresy, a replica of Dutch Arminianism to the English Church, and a pastorally hazardous (“desperate”) doctrine that would undercut assurance. First, Calvinists were convinced that English anti-Calvinism was not a novel ideology, but merely Pelagianism revived. Pelagianism was a fifth-century heresy that arose from the teachings of Pelagius, who stressed man’s ability to achieve salvation through human effort unassisted by divine grace. Pelagius’s doctrines were opposed in the early 410s by Augustine and officially denounced in 418 at the Council of Carthage.9 Calvinists believed that when Arminians rejected Calvinist views, they essentially adopted these ancient heretical teachings. For example, Daniel Featley argued that Montague’s doctrine was ultimately derived from “Pelagius”—“the stream of [from which] corrupt doctrine flow,” whose “assertions” “were condemned by the Catholique Christian Church before they were brought forth by Arminius.”10 Featley established these links by systematically outlining each Pelagian proposition alongside explicit parallels between it, Ioynt Attestation, avowing that the discipline of the Church of England was not impeached by the Synode of Dort (London: Robert Mylbourne, 1626). Balcanquhall’s work is an appendix to the second edition of Carleton’s Examination. Suffragium collegiale theologorum (Londoni: Roberti Mylbourne, 1626). Suffragium collegiale theologorum is signed by Thomas Goad, Samuel Ward, Walter Balcanquhall, George Carlton, and John Davenport. Francis Rous, Testis veritatis: The Doctrine of King Iames our late Saveraigne of famous Memory. Of the Church of England. Of the Catholic Church. Plainely shewed to bee One in the points of Predestination, Freewill, Certaintie of salvation. With a discovery of the Grounds both Naturall Politicke of Arminianisme (London: W. I., 1626); Anthony Wotton, A Dangerous Plot Discovered (London: Nicholas Bourne, 1626); Henry Burton, A Plea to an Appeale: Trauersed Dialogue wise (London: W. I., 1626); Richard Bernard, Rhemes against Rome (London: Blackmore, 1626); and Matthew Sutcliffe, A Briefe Censure upon an Appeale to Caesar (Oxford, 1626). For a helpful summary of these works, see Milward, Religious Controversies in the Jacobean Age, 41–43; and Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 155–56. Jonathan Atkins has classified the various responses to Montague, placing ministers in one of three categories. See Jonathan Atkins, “Calvinist Bishops, Church Unity and the Rise of Arminianism,” Albion 18 (1986): 423. 9 F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, 1997), 125, 130. For the links between Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, see Irena Backus and Aza Goudriaan, “‘Semipelagianism’: The Origins of the Term and Its Passage into the History of Heresy,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 65 (2014): 25. For a succinct but fine treatment of these disputes, see Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo (Berkley: University of California Press, 2000), 341–53. For an English edition of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings, see Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume 5: Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings, First Series, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, Mass.: Hendricksen, 1994). 10 Featley, Second Parallel, A2r–v.

Defending Calvinism in England Before and After Dort

Montague’s Arminian doctrine, and quotes from Peter Bertius’s account of the famous Remonstrant conference of 1609 at The Hague.11 Moreover, Calvinists employed patristic sources, especially Augustine, to show the parallels between Arminianism and Pelagianism. In particular, Calvinists attempted to demonstrate that both Pelagianism and Arminianism denied original sin, limited atonement, and that man’s will was bound. Likewise, both movements affirmed universal grace, held that a person labors with the Spirit in obtaining salvation, and linked predestination with God’s foreknowledge rather than with the divine decree. Calvinists also indicted anti-Calvinists with holding views that had been condemned by the universal church throughout the last twelve hundred years. The Puritan Henry Burton argued that although Montague’s doctrinal claims in New Gagg initially “might have passed onely for errours, as falling from some distemper of hastie passion,” now that they had been “stoutly and stiffly, in cold blood, defended” they have “grow[n] to be flat heresies, and so no further to be tolerated, as S. Augustine speaketh.”12 By equating Montague’s views with Pelagianism, Burton was not merely charging him with positing the newer errors of Arminius and those condemned by English divines at the Synod of Dort but indicting him with holding heretical views condemned since the early Church. Yet because these teachings were heretical, Calvinists had confidence that they would be overcome. These English Calvinists of the 1620s were not the first English Protestants to connect Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism with anti-Calvinism. Calvinists traced the influx of Arminianism in England to the debates that had originated in Cambridge in the 1590s.13 In 1590 William Perkins had most fully expounded the doctrine of predestination in his most famous work, Armilla Aurea (1590), which was subsequently translated into English as A Golden Chaine (1591).14 11 Featley, A parallel, B4v. For the Arminian parallels, see B4v–C1r. For the accounts of The Hague conference, see Goudriaan, “Synod of Dort on Arminian Anthropology,” 85. 12 Burton, Plea to an Appeal, a3r. 13 For secondary accounts of the theological disputes of the 1590s in Cambridge, see H. C. Porter, Reformation and Reaction in Tudor Cambridge (Cambridge University Press, 1958), 277–413; Peter Lake, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge University Press, 1982), 201–42; David Hoyle, Reformation and Religious Identity, 1590–1644 (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2007), 71–86; Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 29–36; White, Predestination, 101–23. On the use of Pelagianism as a polemical weapon in the 1590s disputes in Cambridge, see Mark R. Shaw, “William Perkins and the New Pelagians: Another Look at the Cambridge Predestination Controversy of the 1590s,” Westminster Theological Journal 58 (1996): 267–301. On Perkins, see W. B. Patterson, William Perkins and the Making of Protestant England (Oxford University Press, 2014). 14 William Perkins, Armilla Aurea (Londoni: Iohannas Legatt, 1590); William Perkins, A Golden Chaine, or the description of Theologie, containing order of the causes of Salvation and Damna-

79

80

Greg A. Salazar

Perkins’s Golden Chaine was a response to a predestinarian controversy that began in 1570 between the leading Calvinist theologians in Cambridge and two anti-Calvinists—Peter Baro (a French Protestant who held the Lady Margaret Professorship of Divinity) and William Barrett (a prominent English divine and fellow of Caius College), who were opposing Calvinist doctrine.15 Perkins’s work was intended to refute the false doctrinal positions being put forth by Baro and Barrett and to assist others who were wrestling with these complex doctrinal issues. While it does not appear that Perkins was ever formally a part of the cohort that opposed the anti-Calvinists in 1595, Perkins’s works on predestination both before and after the conflict were intended to refute their theology.16 In particular, Perkins and his Calvinist colleagues attacked what they perceived to be Pelagian doctrine in their opponents. Perkins drew parallels between Pelagians and Arminians, calling them the “old and newe Pelagians; who place the cause of Gods predestination in man” and “ascribe Gods Predestination to mens foreseen preparations and meritorious works.”17 As we have seen, this same approach was adopted by later English Calvinists in the 1620s as they opposed the English anti-Calvinist, Richard Montague. Moreover, since Arminius had responded to Perkins’s arguments originating from these debates, later Calvinists regarded these disputes as a precursor to the Montague debate. Second, English Calvinists depicted Montague and his anti-Calvinist colleagues’ views as a replica of Remonstrant theology. Many English Calvinists were convinced that Montague had read Arminius and other Dutch Remonstrant writings, including Peter Bertius’s work, De Apostasia Sanctorum. For example, William Prynne argued that Montague had even plagiarized Bertius, claiming, “I find all Mr Mountague’s quotations, one only excepted recorded tion, according to Gods woorde (London: John Legate, 1591). The English preface was an addition to the Latin original. Patterson, William Perkins, 69–70. For a list of Perkins’s writings, see Charles Robert Munson, “William Perkins: Theologian of Transition” (PhD diss., Case Western Reserve University, 1971), 231–34; and Donald McKim, Ramism in William Perkins’ Theology (New York: Peter Lang), 335–37. 15 See Peter Baro, In Jonam prophetam praelectiones 39. In quibus multa pié doctéque disseruntur & explicantur (London: John Day, 1579); Andreas Hyperius, A Speciall Treatise of Gods Providence, and of comforts against all kinde of crosses & calamities to be fetched from the same. With an exposition of the 107. Psalme. Heerunto is added an appendix of certaine sermons & questions, (conteining sweet & comfortable doctrine) as they were uttered and disputed ad clerum in Cambridge, by Peter Baro, trans. John Ludham (London: Iohn Wolfe, 1588); Patterson, William Perkins, 70; and Quantin, Church of England and Christian Antiquity, 171. For manuscript accounts related to the dispute, particularly Laurence Chaderton’s interview of William Barrett, see Lambeth Palace Library, MS 2550, 164r–167v. 16 Patterson, William Perkins, 71, 79, 82. 17 Perkins, Golden Chaine, A2r.

Defending Calvinism in England Before and After Dort

verbatim by that famous Arminian Bertius in his booke De Apostasia Sanctorum; neither are they to be found in any man’s work but his.”18 Indeed, there were strong links between English anti-Calvinists and Dutch Arminians in the lead-up to the Synod of Dort. For example, William Laud was an admirer of the Arminian Gerhard Vossius’s Historia Pelagiana (1618), “the first systematic history of Pelagianism.”19 Indeed, though the Puritan divine Samuel Ward condemned Vossius’s work, Laud used it as a reference for reading Augustine’s collected works and commended it to others. Moreover, Laud had extensive private correspondence with Vossius and wanted “to bring Vossius’s talents to England,” though Laud did try to maintain a safe distance from Remonstrants in more public venues.20 Laud was not the only divine linked with Remonstrants. Montague also had connections with Dutch Arminians. During his time at King’s College Cambridge, Montague “thank[ed] Richard ‘Dutch’ Thomson for providing scholarly assistance” in the preface of his edition of Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni in Iulianum Invectivae Duae (1610).21 Strong links existed between the Dutch Arminians Hugo Grotius, Peter Bertius, and Dutch Thomson and the disputes of the Cambridge anti-Calvinist divines from the 1590s including Lancelot Andrewes, William Barlow, and John Overall.22 In addition, in June 1618 the Dutch Remonstrant Johan Oldenbarnevelt wrote to the Dutch ambassador in London to recommend the English Arminians John Overall, Richard Neile, and 18 William Prynne, The Perpetuitie of a Regenerate Mans Estate (London: Michael Sparke, 1627), Aa4v, Bb1r. 19 John Cosin, The Correspondence of John Cosin, ed. G. Ormsby (Durham: Surtees Society, 1869–72), 1:47; and Arnoud Visser, Reading Augustine in the Reformation (Oxford University Press, 2011), 125. 20 William Laud, The Works of William Laud, ed. J. Bliss and W. Scott (Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1847–1860), 1:250;Visser, Reading Augustine in the Reformation, 131; C. S. M. Rademaker, Life and Works of Gerardus Joannes Vossius (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981), 228–35. 21 Nicholas Tyacke, “Arminianism and English Culture,” in Nicholas Tyacke, Aspects of English Protestantism, c. 1530–1700 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), 227; Gregory of Nazianzus, Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni in Iulianum Invectivae Duae, ed. Richard Montague (Etonae: Iohannes Norton, 1610), “Ad Lectorem.” Robert Abbot, De gratia et perseuerantia sanctorum, exercitationes aliquot habitae in Academia Oxoniensi (London: Ioannem Billiam, 1618), 83–221; John Prideaux, Lectiones Novem (Oxford: Iohannes Lichfield & Guilielmus Turner, 1625), 1–22, 49–170; and Samuel Ward, Opera Nonnulla (London: Sa. Gellibrand and Sa. Thomson, 1658), 127–30. On these works, see Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 72; and Tyacke, “Arminianism and English Culture,” 223, 226. 22 Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 20; and Tyacke, “Arminianism and English Culture,” 223. On Montague’s use of Overall’s papers to write New Gagg and Appello Caesarem, see Anthony Milton and Alexandra Walsham, eds., “Richard Montagu: ‘Concerning Recusancie of Communion with the Church of England,’” in From Cranmer to Davidson: A Church of England Miscellany, ed. Stephen Taylor (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 1999), 69–101.

81

82

Greg A. Salazar

John Buckeridge for the English delegation to the Synod of Dort, though James famously selected Calvinist delegates.23 English anti-Calvinists’ relationship with Dutch divines was a cautious one, however, and was largely initiated by the Remonstrants. Indeed, English divines deliberately avoided denouncing Dutch Remonstrants as heretics, and they were careful to avoid maintaining extensive correspondence for fear that they might also be too closely associated with a group that was being condemned in the Calvinist Low Countries.24 Just as there were links between anti-Calvinists and Remonstrants, there were ties between English Calvinists and contra-Remonstrants. Indeed, the Synod of Dort was the upshot of the dispute that began between William Perkins and Jacob Arminius. When Perkins published his second treatise on predestination, De preaedestinationis modo et ordine (1598), Arminius read the work.25 Arminius had previously studied under the Calvinist scholastic, Theodore Beza.26 As such, according to Carl Bangs, Arminius originally “bought the book eagerly, for he was an admirer of Perkins, but read it with dismay.”27 Arminius immediately wrote Perkins to express his concern and to request a conference in which the two would debate the various issues set forth in his book.28 Since Perkins died in 1602, Perkins and Arminius never debated each other.29 Arminius wrote his own response, Examination of Perkins’s Little Book on the Order and Mode of Predestination (published posthumously in 1612), which became “in many respects his most important single composition.”30 Following 23 Tyacke, “Arminianism and English Culture,” 225. 24 Milton, Catholic and Reformed, 435–39. 25 William Perkins, De praedestinationis modo et ordine (Cantabrigiae: Iohannis Legatt, 1598); Carl Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971), 83, 115, 186–205; and Patterson, William Perkins, 84–85. 26 On Arminius, see Peter Bertius, The Life and Death of James Arminius, and Simon Episcopius. Professors of divinity in the University of Leyden in Holland. Both of them famous defenders of the doctrine of Gods universal grace, and sufferers for it (London: Francis Smith, 1673). Also, see James Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols (London: Longman and Co., 1825–1828). 27 Bangs, Arminius, 209. 28 Bangs, Arminius, 209; and Patterson, William Perkins, 85 29 For a comparison of Perkins’s and Arminius’s views, see Richard A. Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 22–23, 43, 187–88, 264–66; Keith D. Stanglin, Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation: The Context, Roots, and Shape of the Leiden Debate, 1603–1609 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 68, 131–32, 136, 170–71, 179, 182–83, 185, 211–13, 215–17, 223, 234; and Stanglin and McCall, Jacob Arminius, 73, 99, 103, 113, 115–16. 30 Jacob Arminius, Examen modestum libelli, quem D. Gulielmus Perkinsius apprime doctus theologus, edidit ante aliquot annos de praedestinationis modo & ordine (Leiden: Godfrid Basson, 1612); and Bangs, Arminius, 206.

Defending Calvinism in England Before and After Dort

his death in 1609, a conflict ensued between Arminius’s followers and Dutch Calvinists, and the Synod of Dort was called to resolve the divisions within the church.31 The impact of Perkins’s earlier controversy with Arminius on the Synod of Dort cannot be overstated. Indeed, “the year before the synod met, Arminius’s Examen modestum was published in a Dutch translation along with a [Dutch] translation of Perkins’s De Predestinationis modo et ordaine.” 32 It is not surprising that Perkins was cited quite regularly at the Synod of Dort. For example, in one session Franciscus Gomarus—“who had been educated for a time at Cambridge University when Whitaker and Perkins were in their pomp”—attempted to demonstrate that the English Church had supported supralapsarianism by arguing “that both Dr Whitaker and Mr Perkins had determined the contrary, whom he took to be such men as would not dissent from the Confession of the Church of England.”33 Though English anti-Calvinists maintained that the established church’s doctrine was contrary to that confirmed by the English Church, the Calvinist delegates who represented the English Church at Dort rebuffed each of these assertions in their Ioynt Attestation published after the Synod of Dort.34 Thus, for English Calvinists, Montague and his fellow anti-Calvinists so firmly denouncing their Calvinist doctrines and then refraining from disapproving Remonstrant doctrine was enough to implicate them in the Arminian cause. Indeed, a crucial feature of these debates was the creation of confessional lines through patterns of association. That Montague had relationships with Arminian divines and condemned English Calvinists meant he had indicated that his loyalties ultimately rested within the Arminian confessional camp. Finally, it is important to remember that these debates over Calvinist doctrine were not merely doctrinal in nature but were deeply pastoral issues. Indeed, a major argument launched against Calvinism was that since predestination ultimately was dependent not on human choice but on the electing purposes of God, it was an anxiety-producing doctrine that undercut human agency and left men in a state of nervous uncertainty about whether they were truly elect. By contrast, Calvinists appealed to the sweetness of predestinarian doctrine and claimed that Arminianism was a desperate doctrine. Although historians have long acknowledged that there was a strong link for English Calvinists between predestination and assurance, Leif Dixon has 31 Patterson, William Perkins, 86. 32 Patterson, William Perkins, 86; and Bangs, Arminius, 209. 33 Anthony Milton, ed., The British Delegation at the Synod of Dort (1618–1619) (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2005), xxxii, 225; and John Hales, Golden Remains of the Ever Memorable Mr. John Hales of Eton College (London: Robert Pawlet, 1973), Rr1r. 34 Ioynt attestation, avowing that the discipline of the Church of England was not impeached by the Synode of Dort (London, 1626).

83

84

Greg A. Salazar

challenged the assumption that issues of predestination were inextricably tied to spiritual angst. In a chaotic and uncertain culture, the doctrine of predestination provided a stabilizing source of comfort and assurance.35 Calvinists judged that Arminianism limited the comforting potential predestination has as a doctrine. For example, Daniel Featley said that predestination contained “godly consideration” that was “full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons.” In contrast, by making “God’s Election to depend upon the will of man,” Arminianism was “in truth a most desperate doctrine” since it eroded “all solid and firme ground of comfort both in life and death.”36 Prynne likewise said “that the whole comfort and treasure of a Christian ... the whole service of God, and practice of religion are utterly abolished and taken away by this pernicious Error.”37 Burton also argued that only through Calvinist doctrine could one obtain “certainty of salvation.”38 Calvinists were driven by pastoral impetus to protect the English Church from the dangers of English antiCalvinism. Thus, these divines, while engaged in doctrinal debates, were also concerned about how various doctrinal positions would be received by the laity, particularly whether their positions would triumph and lead members toward scriptural truths that would, in turn, provide pastoral comfort, or whether their opponents’ positions would lead the church away from sound doctrine and the accompanying pastoral benefits. Opposing Arminianism Before and After Dort For six months between late 1611 and early 1612, James famously became embroiled in a conflict over the recent appointment of the Arminian Conrad Vorstius to the chair of theology at Leiden University following Arminius’s death.39 Vorstius had been nominated by the Remonstrants because they 35 Leif Dixon, Practical Predestinarians, c. 1590–1640 (Surrey: Ashgate, 2014), 11–12, 7, 15. On similar ideas, see Leif Dixon, “William Perkins, ‘Atheism,’ and the Crises of England’s Long Reformation,” Journal of British Studies 50 (2011): 790–812. Also, see Michael Winship, “Weaker Christians, Backsliders, and Carnal Gospelers: Assurance of Salvation and the Pastoral Origins of Puritan Practical Divinity in the 1590s,” Church History 70 (2001): 462–81; and Lake, “Calvinism and the English Church 1570–1635,” 39. 36 Featley, Second Parallel, C4v. 37 Prynne, Perpetuitie of a Regenerate Mans Estate, 3v. 38 Burton, Plea to an appeal, a2r. 39 James I, His Maiesties Declaration concerning his Proceedings with the States generall of the United Provinces of the Low Countreys, in the Case of D. Conradus Vorstius (London: Robert Barker), D1r. Counter-Remonstrants charged Vorstius with Socinianism for his 1606 publication of Tractatus Theologicus de Deo and republication of Socinus’s De Auctoritate Sanctae Scripturae. James, His Maiesties Declaration, E3r; and Shriver, “Orthodoxy and Diplomacy,”

Defending Calvinism in England Before and After Dort

thought he would be accepted by some of the contra-Remonstrants.40 Remonstrants tried to establish his credibility by appealing to his defense of Protestant orthodoxy against Bellarmine in Anti-Bellarminus contractus.41 Nevertheless, contra-Remonstrants refused to accept these claims and in late 1610 and early 1611 wrote a series of assaults against Vorstius. It is no wonder that Frederick Shriver has argued that Vorstius’s appointment “became a symbolic cause in the struggle between the two parties in church and state.”42 Some have argued that James’s involvement was motivated by political expediency. For example, Frederick Shriver has argued that the upshot of James’s involvement in this affair was that it ignited “a subtle re-adjustment of England’s Dutch policy.”43 While James’s trust in Oldenbarnevelt weakened, his friendship with Prince Maurice became stronger following the incident. While some have argued that James was not concerned about the particulars of Vorstius’s predestinarianism but rather that Vorstius’s teaching was novel, it seems more accurate to understand the king’s opposition to doctrinal novelty as tied to his concern to positively uphold English Calvinism.44 In his declaration against Vorstius, James connected his involvement in the dispute with his conviction that as the head of the English Church, he was obligated to act as the chief “Defender of the Faith.” He explained that it was “one of the principall parts of that duety which appertaines, unto a Christian King, to protect the true Church within his owne Dominions, and to extirpate heresies.”45 He claimed he got involved in the Vorstius affair in order “to prevent so great a mischiefe so farre as We are able: We will and require you to let them understand, how infinitely We shal be displeased; if such a Monster receive advancement in the Church.”46 James said that if Vorstius was allowed to maintain his new post, he would “make known to the world publiquely in print how much We destest such abominable Heresies, and Allowers and Tolerators of them.”47 To that end, James had significant correspondence with his English ambassadors, Sir Ralph Winwood and Robert Cecil, in an attempt to secure Vorstius’s dismissal.

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

451. On Socinianism in England, see Sarah Mortimer, Reason and Religion in the English Revolution: The Challenge of Socinianism (Cambridge University Press, 2010). Shriver, “Orthodoxy and Diplomacy,” 450. Conrad Vorstius, Anti-Bellarminus contradictus (Hanoviae: Guilielmi Antonii, 1610); also, see Shriver, “Orthodoxy and Diplomacy,” 456–57. Shriver, “Orthodoxy and Diplomacy,” 451. Shriver, “Orthodoxy and Diplomacy,” 471 Shriver, “Orthodoxy and Diplomacy,” 454–55. James I, His Maiesties Declaration, A3r. James I, His Maiesties Declaration, B1r. James I, His Maiesties Declaration, B1v.

85

86

Greg A. Salazar

Calvinists appear to have sought James’s support to bolster the counterRemonstrant cause.48 Sibrandus Lubbertus and Matthew Slade were involved in forging the ties between England and the Low Countries, and George Abbot was working behind the scenes, writing to divines in the Low Countries and doing all in his power to ensure that James would continue his mission to have Vorstius deposed.49 Although there are hints that throughout the whole affair James felt disrespected, in the end, Prince Maurice supported James, as well as the counter-Remonstrance, in his stance against Vorstius. Interestingly, in the printed account of the declaration, those who were working behind the scenes with James (Luddertus, Slade, and Abbot) are not mentioned. This reveals that in his Declaration James sought to depict himself as the main antagonist against Vorstius and Remonstrant theology and the English Church’s chief “Defender of the Faith,” who had an ecclesiastical and pastoral obligation to protect the church. Nevertheless, as we have seen, James understood how his involvement in the debate could be politically useful to England. Thus, James’s involvement in the matter of Vorstius’s appointment is indicative of how political and ecclesiastical struggles were combined in England, as they were the Low Countries. There is evidence that in the last few years of his life, James appears to have shifted from predominantly supporting the Calvinist cause and began to prefer English anti-Calvinists. Calvinists attempted to oppose the political and ecclesiastical shifts that were occurring in the 1620s by claiming that James never ceased to support the Calvinist cause. For example, Daniel Featley said that when James received a copy of Arminius’s work, he esteemed it “to be no better then an halfe faced groat of the Semipelagian alloy” and “stabbed it through with his Royall pen, and branded the Master of the Mint with the title of the enemie of God.”50 Likewise, Francis Rous devoted an entire work vindicating James from those who denied that he held Calvinist doctrines.51 Rous spoke of James’s “famous memory,” whose “honor [was] polluted, prophaned in a high degree by An Appeale, so much depressing the Synod of Dort, which [James] so much graced, and exalting Arminianisme, which His sacred Majestie so much detested.”52 John Yates also drew on James’s censure and condemnation of Vorstius, Bertius, and Arminius as evidence of his Calvinist ideals.53 We should, however, be careful about taking at face value these claims about James’s doctrinal allegiances at the end of his life. In 1624 James instructed 48 49 50 51 52 53

Shriver, “Orthodoxy and Diplomacy,” 451. Shriver, “Orthodoxy and Diplomacy,” 449, 455. Featley, A parallel, A3v. Rous, Testis Veritatis. Burton, Plea to an appeal, 3r. Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem, A4r–v.

Defending Calvinism in England Before and After Dort

Francis White to read Richard Montague’s Appello Caesarem, which helped ease it into print.54 Peter Heylyn attributed this shift to the idea that toward the end of his life, James became “more moderate” and “into a better liking of those opinions, which he had laboured to condemn at the Synod of Dort.”55 Moreover, Heylyn described the transitions of power in the 1620s, saying that “no man had the courage to make such a general assault against the late received opinions as the Bishop did; though many when the ice was broken, followed gladly after him.”56 Conclusion Calvinist ministers attempted to combat the intrusion of Arminianism in England through a mixture of political and ecclesiastical strategies and combated what they perceived to be a revival of Pelagianism and a transmission of Dutch Remonstrant theology. Motivated by strong pastoral concerns, they sought to establish the roots of anti-Calvinism in the ancient Pelagian heresy and asserted ideological and relational links between Dutch Remonstrants and English antiCalvinists. Calvinist ministers employed a number of strategies to cope with losing their ecclesiastical and political influence in the changing ecclesiastical and political circumstances of the mid-1620s, chiefly drawing on the memory of James’s polemic against Dutch Arminianism in order to resurrect a vision of the Jacobean regime that existed before the Caroline regime.

54 See, for example, Francis White’s Approbation of Richard Montague’s Appello Caesarem, Bodleian Library (Oxford), Rawlinson MS C.573, 21r–93v. 55 Peter Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus (London: A. Seile, 1668), R3r. Milton has shown how his ideas developed throughout his career and argued Heylyn was not “a government propogandist”— “a hired pen” who “wrote for money.” Anthony Milton, Laudian and Royalist Polemic in Seventeenth-Century England: The Career and Writings of Peter Heylyn (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2014), 8. 56 Peter Heylyn, Theologia veterum: or the Summe of Christian Theologie, Positive, Polemical, and Philological, contained in the Apostles Creed, or reducible to it (London: Henry Seile, 1654), B1v.

87

R. Scott Clark

6. Seriously and Promiscuously: The Synod of Dort on the Free Offer of the Gospel When one thinks about the Synod of Dort, one might think of flowers—TULIPs to be precise—or perhaps of domestic political intrigue, or even of the Thirty Years’ War. Still others might think of a theological argument that became so heated and so personal that Franciscus Gomarus (1563–1641) challenged Matthias Martinius (1572–1630) to a duel. Whatever one thinks about the Synod of Dort, evangelism and missions are probably not near the top of the list, but perhaps they should be. The synod was at pains to affirm the free, promiscuous, well-meant, offer of the gospel to all men and to all sorts of men.1 In a very real sense, as Bob Godfrey has been teaching us since the early 1970s, the Synod of Dort was about the defense of the gospel and specifically a defense of the Reformation recovery of the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.2 Many among the Reformed Christians believed that the Remonstrants were threatening to undo all that had been accomplished in the previous century, and they were doing so under the protection of powerful political, cultural, and religious forces in the name of peace and harmony. The Remonstrants wanted to change the “evangel,” the gospel that is announced to the church and the world, from the announcement of a covenant of grace into the announcement of a new covenant of works, of salvation through faith, obedience, and perseverance. They also wanted to change the basis for the proclamation of the new gospel. Arminius’s Denial of the Gospel and Its Free, Well-Meant Offer Prior to his ordination to the pastorate in classis Amsterdam in 1588, Jacob Arminius (1560–1609) was, as far as most people knew, quite orthodox. As an undergraduate, he had studied in the University of Leiden, where the theology faculty was Reformed. As a theological student in Geneva, he studied under 1 Parts of this essay are drawn from R. Scott Clark, “Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel and Westminster Theology,” in David VanDrunen, ed., The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: A Festschrift for Robert B. Strimple (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 2004), 149–80. 2 W. Robert Godfrey, Saving the Reformation: The Pastoral Theology of the Canons of Dort (Orlando, Fla.: Reformation Trust, 2019).

90

R. Scott Clark

Theodore Beza (1519–1605), who gave him a letter of recommendation when he finished. While he was in Geneva he used the city as home base from which he made trips to a variety of famous schools to study with scholars from different backgrounds. On a trip to Padua, it seems that he came into contact with the work of some influential Romanist theologians, including Molina, whose theory of middle knowledge (media scientia) held that God knows what free creatures might do, and even arranges circumstances, but leaves the creature free to make whatever choice he will.3 Many modern Arminius scholars argue that Arminius embraced this doctrine as an answer to the problem of evil—how there can be evil and God be just.4 Some of his earliest critics found evidence for a change of sympathies in the texts that he assigned when he began teaching theology in Leiden. There is certainly evidence of his adoption of middle knowledge in his writings. After his studies, he returned to Amsterdam, where he was called to a pastorate and married. Almost immediately he found himself embroiled in controversy. His sermons in Romans were especially controversial. On Romans 7, he theorized that Paul could not have been speaking about himself as a Christian. Rather, he argued, Paul was describing his pre-Christian experience. He wrote, The Apostle in this passage is treating neither about himself, such as he was then was, nor about a man living under grace; but he has transferred to himself the person of a man placed under the law .... The Apostle in this passage is not treating about a man who is already regenerate through the Spirit of Christ; but has assumed the person of a man who is not yet regenerate.5

From here, he would go on to advocate a form of Christian perfectionism. From Romans 9, he argued that God elects on the basis of foreseen faith.6 Despite the controversy attached to his teaching, he was called, in 1603, from the pastorate to a position in the theology faculty in the University of Leiden. His appointment was controversial and the governors of the university twice commissioned a faculty member, Gomarus, to investigate his views. Gomarus suspected Arminius of heterodoxy, but he was never able to prove it. Arminius was a winsome and persuasive teacher and, over the years, accumulated a following among students, who became pastors and spread his teaching 3 Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 45, 198–201. 4 Stanglin and McCall, Jacob Arminius, 65–66. 5 James Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols and William Nichols, The London Edition (repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 2:491. 6 Arminius, Works, 3:487.

Seriously and Promiscuously: The Synod of Dort on the Free Offer of the Gospel

in the church. He died in 1609 (probably of tuberculosis). Before he died, however, he published his Declaration of Sentiments in 1608. In his Declaration, we find some explanation for why the Synod of Dort was at pains to make it clear that the Reformed churches of Europe and the British Isles believe and confess the free, well-meant offer of the gospel. One difficulty in understanding his Declaration is that he chose not to engage the majority Reformed view of the divine decrees, that in election God sees humans as created and fallen, out of which he unconditionally elects some to salvation and passes over others allowing them to remain in their sin.7 This is a broad sketch of the view known as infralapsarianism. Instead, he only engaged Gomarus’s view that, from all eternity, God sees humans as potentials, i.e., neither as created or fallen, and that he decrees the election of some and the reprobation of others. This is supralapsarianism. He denied that “this doctrine of predestination,” i.e., Gomarus’s supralapsarianism, is the “foundation of Christianity, of salvation, or of its certainty.”8 He went on, however, more or less, to reject infralapsarianism too in favor of middle knowledge. So, he postured as anti-supralapsarian when, in fact, he was opposed to unconditional election of any sort. Thus, “the certainty of salvation,” he wrote, is “those who believe will be saved.”9 He continued, “The essence of the gospel is wrapped up in an injunction to repent and believe, accompanied by a promise to bestow the forgiveness of sins, the grace of the Spirit, and life eternal.”10 Notice what he did not say. For Arminius, the essence of the gospel is not the objective obedience, death, and resurrection of Christ for us. Rather, for Arminius, the gospel is our response, our repentance, our faith—which, he argued, is imputed to us for righteousness. Notice too that it is only after we repent and believe that the “grace of the Spirit” is given. Here he fundamentally rejected the order of salvation taught by Reformed theologians of the Reformation. He taught that God, by his antecedent will, has given sufficient grace (essentially in nature) for all men and every man to believe, if only he will. Remember that, for Arminius, Christ died for all men and every man to make salvation possible for those who do their part. This was the language of the Remonstrants.11 In their theology, faith became something that we do, in cooperation with what he called “common grace.” In 7 Jacobus Arminius, Arminius and His Declaration of Sentiments: An Annotated Translation with Introduction and Theological Commentary, trans. W. Stephen Gunter (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2012). 8 Declaration of Sentiments, I.I, 108. 9 Declaration of Sentiments, I.II, 108. 10 Declaration of Sentiments, I.II, 109. 11 “Pro omnibus et singulis hominibus,” in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1882), 3:546. See also “The Remonstrance of 1610” in P. Y. De Jong,

91

92

R. Scott Clark

his Declaration, Arminius explicitly rejected the Reformed teaching that God graciously and specially grants new life to dead sinners, and true faith to those whom he has regenerated. Rather, he argued, “the order of the Gospel of Jesus Christ…requires repentance and faith and promises everlasting life to those who convert and believe.”12 He also rejected the Reformed doctrine of the free, well-meant offer of the gospel. “This predestination” (really any doctrine of unconditional election), he argued, is “hostile to the ministry of the gospel.”13 “If God,” he explained, “awakens the creature that is dead in trespasses and sin by an irresistible force,” anyone so awakened is not a “servant together with God” nor can such a person be an “instrument of grace and the Spirit to preach the gospel.”14 Any unconditional doctrine of election and sovereign regeneration taints the gospel with the stench of death unto death for the majority of those who hear it.15 Any doctrine of unconditional election and the free offer “may quite easily lead pastors and teachers to become slothful and negligent in the exercise of their ministry. This doctrine implies that their ministering diligence cannot profit anyone except those whom God has specifically willed to save.”16 He rejected the Reformed view of the free, well-meant offer of the gospel on the ground that “if redemption was not purchased for all,”17 then “faith in Christ is, by no right, required of all, and if it was not obtained for all, no one can be rightly blamed, on account of rejecting the offer of redemption, for he rejects that which does not belong to him, and he does it with propriety.”18 He had to reject the unconditional, well-meant offer of the gospel because he rejected an unconditional covenant of grace. In his revision of Reformed theology, election is conditional, the atonement is conditional, and the gospel is conditional. In short, the Reformed believed that he turned the covenant of grace into a covenant of works.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

ed., Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dort, 1618–1619 (Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship, 1968), 208. Declaration, XVII, p. 122. Declaration, XVIII, p. 123. Declaration, XVIII,1, p. 123. Declaration, XVIII.2, p. 123. Declaration, XVIII.5, p. 124. Donald MacLean, James Durham (1622–1658): And the Gospel Offer in its Seventeenth-Century Context (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 23. The Works of James Arminius, ed. and trans. James Nicholes and W. R. Bagnall (Auburn: Derby and Miller, 1853), 3:458, cited in MacLean, James Durham (1622–1658): And the Gospel Offer, 23, n. 24.

Seriously and Promiscuously: The Synod of Dort on the Free Offer of the Gospel

The Denial of the Free, Well-Meant Offer Among Some Reformed When we think about the free, well-meant offer there are three sides to the controversy. So far, we have looked briefly at Arminius’s rejection of it. That is one side. A second side of the triangle is the mainstream, orthodox Reformed confession of the free, well-meant offer reflected in the Canons of Dort (CD). There is a third side of the triangle: those who identified with the Reformed faith and confession who rejected the teaching of the free offer. In the Three Points of Synod Kalamazoo (1924) the Christian Reformed Church in North America came out solidly for the well-meant offer of the gospel. The well-meant offer, however, came under sustained criticism from Herman Hoeksema (1886–1965) and his followers, who contended that the well-meant offer is a form of Arminianism. One of their theologians has identified this issue as “the chief point of controversy” between themselves and proponents of common grace.19 The doctrine of the well-meant offer has also been rejected by the followers of Gordon Clark (1902–1985) and his opposition to the well-meant offer played a major part of the Clark-Van Til Controversy in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in the 1940’s. More recently, even John Gerstner (1914–1996) revealed his opposition to the well-meant offer in a book against dispensationalism. One can argue that, ironically, in their rejection of the free or well-meant offer and in their rejection of its basis in the distinction between theology as God knows and theology as he reveals it to us, they actually ended up siding with Arminius, whom they intended to oppose. What Is the Free, Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel? Johannes Wollebius (1586–1629) in his 1626 Compendium of Christian Theology under the heading, “On the Covenant of Grace,” distinguished between the covenant of grace, which is “after the fall,” and the covenant of works which was initiated with our “first parents.”20 He also distinguished between the covenant of grace considered externally and internally. By analogy, there is both an “offering” (oblatio) and “sealing” (obsignatio) of the covenant of grace. The offer comes to all externally, but the sealing comes only to the elect who receive the benefits of the covenant.21 The external or “common call” (communis vocatio) 19 Herman C. Hanko, For Thy Truth’s Sake: A Doctrinal History of the Protestant Reformed Churches (Grandville, Mich.: Reformed Free Pub. Assoc., 2000), 53, n. 9. 20 Johannes Wollebius, Christianae theologiae compendium, ed. E. Bizer (Neukirchen, 1935). For an English translation see J. W. Beardslee III, trans. and ed., Reformed Dogmatics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965). Citations from the Compendium give the page numbers. 21 Wollebius, Compendium, 92.

93

94

R. Scott Clark

is that by which all are “invited” (invitantur) to “a state of grace or participation of Christ the Mediator.”22 His proof that the external call was an invitation was Matthew 22:2–3. According to Wollebius, the well-meant offer is addressed neither to all nor only to the elect, but to people of every sort.23 The form of the call is an “offer of the benefits of redemption.”24 The substance of the offer is that “God promises by himself to be a Father, in Christ, if we will fulfill filial obedience.”25 The “end” (finis) of this “offered covenant,” i.e., “the common call, is the glory of God and the salvation of the elect.”26 The covenant is “offered” (offertur) to all, but only the elect “profit” from the promises of the covenant.27 Therefore, the external call comes “seriously” (serio) to both the elect and the reprobate.28 That one is called by the preaching of the gospel does not make one elect, because this call is common to the elect and to the reprobate, on the condition of faith.29 One finds the same sort of language in the works of William Ames (1576–1633), one of the English fathers of Dutch Reformed orthodoxy and even of the Nadere Reformatie.30 This is the sort of language adopted by the Synod of Dort. Under the first head of doctrine, the synod confessed: And that men may be brought to believe, God mercifully sends the messengers of these most joyful (laetissimi nunti) tidings to whom he will and at what time he pleases; by whose ministry men are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?”31

The synod quoted Romans 10:14–15 as justification for their doctrine of the free, well-meant offer, and they grounded it not in a universal atonement, nor even in a hypothetically universal atonement, but in God’s good pleasure: “God mercifully sends the messengers of these most joyful tidings to whom he will” and when he will. This is a correlation from John 3. The Spirit blows where he 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Wollebius, Compendium, 90. Wollebius, Compendium, 91. Wollebius, Compendium, 91. Wollebius, Compendium, 92. Wollebius, Compendium, 93. Wollebius, Compendium, 93. Wollebius, Compendium, 91. Wollebius, Compendium, 92. See MacLean, James Durham, 37–39. Canons of Dort, 1.3; Schaff, Creeds, 3:552, 581.

Seriously and Promiscuously: The Synod of Dort on the Free Offer of the Gospel

will. The number of the elect belongs to God. The number of those for whom Christ died belongs to God. The spread of the gospel and its effects belong to God. According to the Synod, the Christian’s business is to obey the scriptural imperative to take the good news to the Jew and Greek alike (Rom. 10:11–13). The members of the synod knew that crucial to Paul’s argument is his quotation of Psalm 19:4, “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, their words to the end of the world,” and Deuteronomy 32:21, “I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry,” and finally Isaiah 65:1, “I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for me; I was ready to be found by those who did not seek me. I said, ‘Here I am, here I am,’ to a nation that was not called by my name.” In short, the synod was building on the distinction they all affirmed from Deuteronomy 29:29: “the secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever.” They understood that we do not know what is in God’s eternal decree, but we do know what is in God’s revealed Word: Go, announce the good news to all sorts of people everywhere, in the confidence that the God who sent his only begotten Son to accomplish the redemption of his elect is using the means of grace, the public, free, serious, promiscuous, well-meant offer of the gospel to bring his elect to new life and to true faith in Christ. The synod articulated this doctrine of the free, well-meant offer explicitly under the second head of doctrine, on the atonement: Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whoever believes (credit) in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and propounded to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously (promiscue) and indiscriminately (indiscriminatim), to whom God by his good pleasure sends the gospel (CD II, 5).32

Notice also the adverbs promiscuously and indiscriminately. Isaiah 65 and Romans 10 are still in the background. The exploration of the New World was still young. European explorers began to reach Newfoundland and to the south in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Jamestown Settlement was founded in 1607, just eleven years before the Synod of Dort. They were just beginning to grapple with what the New World meant for missions, church planting, and the administration of the sacraments, but the theory is clear. They

32 Schaff, Creeds, 3:561, 586.

95

96

R. Scott Clark

believed that the gospel is not to be hoarded. It is to be carried and announced and salvation offered to all sorts of people everywhere. Notice also how the synod spoke in contrast to Arminius. It started with faith, not repentance because they knew that it is those to whom God has sovereignly given new life who believe in Christ crucified. It is believers who repent. Arminius and the Remonstrants had a different logical order. For them, we repent, then we believe, and then we receive the Holy Spirit. The Remonstrants had a legal religion of justification through faith, obedience, and perseverance. The Reformed churches confessed a religion of sovereign, gracious election, accomplished redemption, and the gracious application of redemption by the Holy Spirit. In the administration of the gospel, they argued that God has ordained to use means, the joyful announcement of the good news that Christ obeyed, Christ died, Christ was raised, and Christ saves sola gratia, sola fide. Still, we have not addressed the Synod’s language about the nature of the offer. So far, adjectives have been primarily used to qualify the offer: free and well-meant. The primary reason is because, under the third and fourth heads of doctrine, the synod confessed: As many as are called through the gospel are called seriously (serio); for God seriously (serio) and most truly reveals in his Word what should be acceptable to him, namely, that as many as are called should come to him. Seriously he also promises rest for the souls and eternal life to all those coming to him (CD III/IV, 8).33

One part of the background to the Reformed doctrine of the free, well-meant offer is the twofold distinction between the external call, the public preaching of the gospel, and the internal call, i.e., the work of the Holy Spirit through the preached gospel to bring the elect to new life and true faith. In the Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 65 the Reformed churches confess: Since then we are made partakers of Christ and all His benefits by faith alone, whence comes this faith? The Holy Spirit works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the Holy Gospel, and confirms it by the use of the Holy Sacraments.34

33 Schaff, Creeds, 3:565–66; 589. 34 My translation based on Schaff, 3:332 and H. A. Niemeyer, ed., Collectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis Reformatis Publicatarum (Leipzig, 1840), 444.

Seriously and Promiscuously: The Synod of Dort on the Free Offer of the Gospel

Arminius and the Remonstrants, however, rejected the distinction between the external and internal call. According to the Reformed theologian and critic of the Remonstrants, Pierre du Moulin (1568–1658), They say, that the Word of God, whensoever and among whomsoever it is preached, is never destitute of its quickening power, neither is anyone outwardly called but [that] he is also inwardly drawn. And therefore the [Remonstrants] refuse the distinction of vocation or calling into outward and inward.35

According to the Remonstrants, God has given to all men the potential of believing, but the act of believing is up to them.36 The Reformed did not so embed the Word with the Spirit that it works automatically. Further, for the Reformed, Scripture teaches that we are, after the fall, dead in sins and trespasses and must be regenerated and brought to faith. What Is Its Basis? Following Arminius, the Remonstrants wanted to divorce the gospel from unconditional election, but the Reformed would not and could not do so, since they believed that the divine decree to elect sinners unconditionally and to pass over others in their sin was the basis of their confident, promiscuous, serious, genuine, free, offer of the gospel to all kinds of men everywhere. The Remonstrant message, they argued, was in effect saying that God has antecedently willed to give the potential to convert and believe to all men; further, Christ has died for all men and every man—the rest is up to the hearer. The Remonstrants could not announce that God has willed the salvation of this or that person, nor could they say that Christ has actually accomplished the salvation of anyone in particular or even that the Holy Spirit irresistibly applies the work of Christ to the elect. They denied all of this. As noted above in passing, the Remonstrants rejected the Reformed distinction between theology as God knows it (which Franciscus Junius called “archetypal theology”) and theology as we know it, which Junius called “ectypal theology.”37 Richard Muller writes, “Arminius’s argument for the priority of 35 Pierre du Moulin, Anatome Arminianismi, seu enucleatio controversiarum quae in Belgio agiantur super doctrina de providentia: de praedestinatione, de morte Christi, de natura et gratia (Lugduni-Batavorum, 1619), 347. 36 Du Moulin, Anatome, 366. 37 See Franciscus Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, trans. David C. Noe (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014).

97

98

R. Scott Clark

intellect in the final vision of God perfectly reproduces the classic intellectualist thesis of Thomas Aquinas.”38 Arminius’s intellectualism was “quite unparalleled” among the early orthodox Reformed and signaled “the profound soteriological disagreement between Arminius and the Reformed and, consequently, toward the greater receptivity of the Arminian system to philosophical rationalism.” More than that, as Muller writes, Arminius’s method proposed an “interrelationship of the Being of God with the being of the world that is both rational and regularized, an interrelationship of the two levels of being, the eternal and temporal that is ordained by God and cannot be undone, not by sin and surely not by the work of redemption.”39 This is all to say that, in Arminius, the analogy between God and man, established by the Reformers and systematized by the early orthodox Reformed theologians, was fundamentally undone in favor of an intersection of divine and human intellects of the sort discarded at the outset of the Reformation. The Reformed, on the other hand, followed Luther’s distinction between the theology of glory and the theology of the cross.40 What Luther called the theology of the cross, Calvin called God’s condescension to us in so-called baby talk.41 The Reformed believed they offered the gospel freely, sincerely, seriously, and promiscuously because that is how God speaks to sinners in Ezekiel 18:23, 31b–32. Calvin followed Luther in his exposition of Ezekiel 18:23: He confirms the same sentiment in other words, that God desires nothing more earnestly than that those who were perishing and rushing to destruction should return into the way of safety. And for this reason not only is the Gospel spread abroad in the world, but God wished to bear witness through all ages how inclined he is to pity.… Besides, God bore witness to it more clearly in the law and the prophets. In the Gospel we hear how familiarly he addresses us when he promises us pardon. (Luke 1:78.) And this is the knowledge of salvation, to embrace his mercy which he offers us in Christ.42

38 Richard Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 78. 39 Muller, God, Creation and Providence, 79. See also 228–29. 40 “Theologus gloriae dicit malum bonum et bonum malum, Theologus crucis dicit id quod res est.” Luthers Werke Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: H. H. Böhlau, 1883), 1:354. 41 “Quis enim vel parum ingeniosus non intelligit Deum ita nobiscum, ceu nutrices solent cum infantibus, quodammodo balbutire?” Joannis Calvini, Opera Selecta, 3.109.13–15 (Institutes, 1.13.1). 42 John Calvin, Commentary on the First Twenty Chapters of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, trans. Thomas Myers (Bellingham, Wash.: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 2:246–47.

Seriously and Promiscuously: The Synod of Dort on the Free Offer of the Gospel

We should notice how he understood Ezekiel’s language as an earnest offer of Christ to the perishing. His basis for it is the revealed will of God: We hold, then, that God wills not the death of a sinner, since he calls all equally to repentance, and promises himself prepared to receive them if they only seriously repent. If any one should object—then there is no election of God, by which he has predestinated a fixed number to salvation, the answer is at hand: the Prophet does not here speak of God’s secret counsel, but only recalls miserable men from despair, that they may apprehend the hope of pardon, and repent and embrace the offered salvation. If any one again objects—this is making God act with duplicity, the answer is ready, that God always wishes the same thing, though by different ways, and in a manner inscrutable to us.43

Arminius and the Remonstrants boasted that they were merely following Scripture, but the synod agreed that Calvin’s account of Scripture was more faithful to what the text says and intends for us to understand. One of the significant changes that the Remonstrants proposed to the Reformed confession was to make election conditional. Arminius had long argued that God elects on the basis of foreseen faith, but even then, it is not always clear that he had a particular election in mind. Rather, he made election conditional upon our repentance, faith, obedience, and perseverance. If we believe, obey, and persevere, then we are elect. We do not believe because we are elect. We are elect because we believe, obey, and persevere. This is the theology of the selfdescribed Federal Vision movement, which has been aptly called “covenantal Arminianism.”44 There is another place where the Remonstrants and the Reformed disagreed. One of the Remonstrants at the Synod, Johannes Arnoldi Corvinus (c. 1582–1650) wrote: Although many nations are destitute of the ordinary preaching of the gospel, yet they are not precisely excluded from the grace of the gospel but always the good things which are offered in the gospel do remain equally propounded to them as to the rest, who do enjoy the privilege of the preaching of it so that they perform the conditions of the covenant.45

43 Calvin, Ezekiel, 247. 44 I owe this expression to my colleague and pastor, Chris Gordon. 45 Quoted by Du Moulin, Anatome, 366.

99

100

R. Scott Clark

There was a trajectory among the Remonstrants not toward only hypothetical universalism but a full-blown, actual universalism. Arminius had begun this path with his doctrine of universal infant salvation, but Corvinus and others quickly moved to salvation apart from Christ on the basis of natural theology. At least some of the Remonstrants diminished the need to take the gospel to all the nations because they diminished the problem of sin and hell. If salvation is possible through natural knowledge, why add to the burden of the lost by telling them about Christ and putting them in jeopardy? When Du Moulin quoted this passage in Corvinus, he added, “I trembled.” What Is Its History? The Reformed doctrine of the free, well-meant, sincere, promiscuous offer of the gospel has deep roots in Reformed theology, but it goes back even further. Prosper of Aquitaine (c. 390–c. 455), an early defender of Augustine, made an inchoate argument in favor of what would later come to be called the free offer of the gospel.46 God reveals himself as willing what we know he has not decreed, the salvation of all.47 Some he passes by and some he elects to faith. Proof that he was teaching a seminal version of the free offer is that, in several of the same passages where he affirms the universal divine will to save, he immediately moves to a discussion of preaching.48 Among the Reformed, the use of the language of “offer” in the sense in which it is ordinarily used, is easy to document. We have already seen it in Calvin’s 1563–1564 lectures on Ezekiel. In his 1555 Commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels, he took Luke 2:10 to mean that “God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few.”49 In his 1553 commentary on John he wrote, “Life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith.”50

46 Prosper of Aquitaine, De vocatione omnium gentium, 1:20; 2:3–4. See Prosper, The Call of All Nations, trans. P. De Letter (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1952). 47 De vocatione, 2:25. 48 De vocatione, 2:2–4. 49 John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, trans. William Pringle (Bellingham, Wash.: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 1:115–16. 50 John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Bellingham, Wash.: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 1:125.

Seriously and Promiscuously: The Synod of Dort on the Free Offer of the Gospel

Calvin’s student, Caspar Olevianus (1536–1587) in his 1579 commentary on Romans and in his final commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, On the Substance of the Covenant of Grace Between God and the Elect (1585) wrote frequently of the “offered gospel” (“oblatum beneficium”) just as Dort later used it.51 We see the same sort of language in William Ames and throughout the Reformed writers in the period. The Synod of Dort adopted this language not only to respond to Arminius and the Remonstrants but because it was considered mainstream, Reformed orthodoxy. In heads III/IV, article 9, the synod declared, “That many who are called through the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not brought to conversion must not be blamed on the gospel, nor on Christ, who is offered through the gospel, nor on God, who calls them through the gospel and even bestows various gifts on them, but on the people themselves who are called.”52 Here, the synod was echoing II, 6 where it also placed the blame for reprobation upon the reprobate and not on Christ offered (oblatae) on the cross. What did the synod intend by this language of “offering”? It has been argued that “offer” here does not mean “to tender to be accepted or rejected,” but rather it means “to exhibit” or “to present” or even “to demand.” The great problem with these alternatives is that if Reformed theologians had wished to say “present” or “exhibit” or “demand,” they had other verbs (e.g. “exhibeo” or “mando”) with which to do it. They did not need “offero” to convey the idea of “exhibit” or “demand” if that is what they intended. Instead, when our theologians spoke of the “evangelium oblatum,” i.e., “gospel offered” in preaching, they believed that it entailed a well and sincerely meant, revealed divine intention that whoever believes would be saved. As we shall see, the range of meaning of “offero,” as it was used by the orthodox, is closer to “invitation” than to “demand.” There are good reasons arising from the canons themselves, however, to reject the proposed re-interpretation of “offero.” In II, 6 the canons describe Christ’s sacrifice (hostia) as “oblatae,” “offered” on the cross. While the idea of “presented” is not utterly remote from the sense of the text, “demand” and “exhibit” make little sense here. The divines meant to say that Jesus gave himself 51 Casper Olevianus, In epistolam...ad Romanos notae (Geneva, 1579), 6, 475; De substantia foederis gratuiti inter Deum et electos (Geneva, 1585), 2:29–31; 2:48. 52 “Quod multi per ministerium Evangelii vocati, non veniunt et non convertuntur, hujus culpa non est in Evangelio, nec in Christo per Evangelium oblato, nec in Deo per Evangelium vocante, et dona etiam varia iis conferente, sed in vocatis ipsis, quorum aliqui verbum vitæ non admittunt securi; alii admittunt quidem, sed non in cor immittunt, ideoque post evanidum fidei temporariæ gaudium resiliunt; alii spinis curarum et voluptatibus sæculi semen verbi suffocant, fructusque nullos proferunt; quod Servator noster seminis parabola docet, Matt. 13” (Schaff, Creeds, 3:566).

101

102

R. Scott Clark

and his obedience as a sacrifice for us to the justice of God, in such a way that it was righteously received by God as payment for the sins of all believers, i.e., the elect. This is how the Vulgate and Theodore Beza’s Latin translations of Hebrews 10:18 used the cognate oblatio.53 In the rejection of errors section under the second head of doctrine (II, rej. 6), the canons attacked vigorously the Remonstrant interpretation of the distinction between “meriting” and “appropriating” Christ’s benefits (beneficia), i.e. justification and sanctification, such that God is said to have made them available to all on condition that sinners exercise their free will (libero arbitrio). In this construal, Christ’s benefits are not dependent any longer on the “singular gift of mercy” (singulari misericordiae dono) but on our cooperation with divine grace. The orthodox divines rejected the Remonstrant view as a contradiction of the gospel.54 Thus, by connecting the Remonstrant doctrine of “free will” to the “grace freely offered” (gratiam indifferenter oblatam applicante), the divines were endorsing the notion that in the preaching of the gospel, grace is offered freely, while simultaneously repudiating the notion that the well-meant offer implies or should become an occasion for “the pernicious poison of Pelagianism” (perniciosum Pelagianismi venenum).55 The well-meant offer of grace was not to be interpreted by the Remonstrants to imply that justification is contingent (pendere) upon a Remonstrant form of congruent merit (facientibus quod in se est, Deus non denegat gratiam). In III/IV, 9, the divines took virtually the same approach as in II, 6. When, in the providence of God, many are outwardly called (vocati) through the (wellmeant offer of the) gospel, and they do not come or are not converted, the blame rests not “in Christo,” in the “Evangelium oblato” (the offered gospel), nor in “God calling through the Gospel.” Having ordained the means of grace, God is free is to confer faith or not through the external gospel call. The moral culpability for unbelief lies in those who “carelessly do not receive the Word of life” (verbum vitae non admittunt securi).56 “Therefore,” Dort says, justifying faith is the “Dei donum,” not because “it is offered by God to man’s free will” (a Deo hominis arbitrio offeratur), but because faith is “conferred” (conferatur), “inspired” (inspiretur), and “infused” (infundatur).57 The divines were not saying that the gospel is not freely and sincerely offered in the preaching of the Word. Rather, they were complaining about Remonstrant 53 Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, ed. R. Weber et al. (Beuron and Tübingen: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983); Novum testamentum domini nostri Jesu Christi, ed. Theodore Beza (London: repr., 1834). 54 Schaff, Creeds, 3:563–64. 55 Schaff, Creeds, 3:563–64. 56 Schaff, Creeds, 3:566 57 Canons III/IV, 14 (Schaff, Creeds, 3:567).

Seriously and Promiscuously: The Synod of Dort on the Free Offer of the Gospel

rationalism, i.e., the inference that, since the gospel is offered freely, sinners, therefore, have a free will and the ability to will contrary to God. In fact, the next point presupposes the existence of the well-meant offer, since the article distinguishes between the external administration and call of the gospel offered seriously and freely, and the internal application of Christ’s benefits by the Holy Spirit wrought through and in conjunction with external gospel preaching. This is why the divines used a series of passive verbs. Justifying faith, they argued, is not the product of the human will, but of sovereign divine operation upon and within humans. This was the typical Reformed way of distinguishing between the external well-meant offer of the gospel and the internal, efficacious work of the Spirit through it. Because the success of the external or common call is contingent upon the divine decree and application of redemption, and not on the preacher’s rhetorical skill or the hearer’s free will, the preacher is free to offer grace to all who will receive it, knowing that it is, as the canons remind us, God who “produces both the will to believe” (velle credere) and “the act of believing” (actum credendi).58 In the interests of space, we can only compare the language and approach of Dort to the teaching of a few post-Dort documents. First, in the Synopsis purioris theologiae (Leiden, 1625) a compilation of school disputations by Johannes Polyander (1568–1646), Andreas Rivet (1572–1651), Antonius Walaeus (1573–1639), and Antonius Thysius (1603–1665), of whom only Rivet was not delegated to the Synod, we find the archetypal/ectypal distinction taught (in Disputatio I, De sacrosancta theologia), and from it a corollary, the internal/external distinction in the ordo salutis.59 Under Disputatio XXX, De hominum vocatione ad salutem, in Art. XXI, the Synopsis taught that through the “preaching of the Gospel” (an external operation performed according to ectypal theology) in which the “good” (bonum) of salvation (Art. XX) is “offered” (offertur) and the Holy Spirit “kindles” (accendit) “genuine knowledge” (serias cogitationes) and “pious desire” (pium desiderium) in our hearts. Not surprisingly, the language of the Leiden Synopsis was virtually identical to that of Dort. Conclusions Reformed folk have often been caricatured for their alleged lack of interest in personal evangelism and derided as the “frozen chosen,” but these caricatures are not accurate. The Reformed churches did not come into existence during 58 Schaff, Creeds, 3:567. 59 Synopsis purioris theologiae, ed. H. Bavinck (Leiden: D. Donner, 1881), 294–300; 2–3.

103

104

R. Scott Clark

the age of missions in the eighteenth century. Their roots are much older. They are not the children of the First or Second Great Awakenings. They do not confess according to those paradigms. The Canons of Dort do, however, reveal a passion for getting the gospel out by preparing ministers to preach it and by planting churches. That might not seem very effective, but they are convinced that this is God’s plan. The incarnation might not seem like a very effective way to establish Christ’s kingdom, but it has worked well for two millennia from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. At their best, when the spirit of Dort is within them, Reformed preachers are often lively, faithful preachers of the gospel, offering Christ freely, indiscriminately, and sincerely to all. They preach prayerfully that God the Spirit will use the offered gospel and the offered Christ to bring new life and true faith to his elect and that the gospel would continue to go to the ends of the earth, to the glory of his holy name, until Jesus returns.

Michael Horton

7.

Is Particular Redemption “Good News”?

Of all the doctrinal emphases that we find in the Canons of Dort—crudely but efficiently summarized in the TULIP acrostic—it is undoubtedly the “L” (limited atonement) that arouses the greatest controversy among Christians. A common criticism is that this doctrine calls into question just how good the news is and how good is the God who announces it. Moreover, how can Calvinists affirm a limited atonement when Scripture says so clearly and frequently, “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son” (John 3:16)? These are perfectly understandable objections and the goal in this essay is to define Dort’s teaching on this point and explain why it is an asset rather than a liability for Reformed theology, preaching, and evangelism. Particular Redemption in the Canons of Dort Despite its widespread usage in evangelical circles today, the clever TULIP acronym was conceived in the United States in the twentieth century.1 Moreover, the canons themselves are not a fulsome confession of faith, since the Reformed churches already had the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism as well as the ecumenical creeds. Far from replacing these standards, the Canons of Dort (CD) were adopted for a very specific purpose: to respond to the Articles of Remonstrance (i.e., objections by followers of Jacob Arminius to standard Reformed teaching). Context of the Doctrine’s Formulation As the Arminians noted, there was nothing in the Belgic Confession or Heidelberg Catechism on particular redemption; in fact, readers today are often surprised to find so little about the other petals in the flower. Far from being a distinctively Reformed inheritance, the bondage of the will, unconditional election, effectual calling, and the perseverance of the saints were traditional Augustinian convictions stated with logical rigor, for example, in the Summa 1 Kenneth J. Stewart, “The Points of Calvinism: Retrospect and Prospect,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 26, no. 2 (2008): 189–93.

106

Michael Horton

theologiae of Thomas Aquinas. What had been neglected, obscured, and outright rejected throughout the medieval period was the sufficiency of Christ’s merits for salvation and, in particular, justification as an exclusively forensic declaration based on Christ’s righteousness imputed to the sinner through faith alone. To be sure, the late medieval church of Luther’s day had also drifted in a more anti-Augustinian (i.e., semi-Pelagian) direction, so defending original sin, God’s gracious priority in election, regeneration and perseverance were also essential. The Belgic Confession defends the doctrine of original sin, condemning the Pelagian view that Adam was merely a poor example rather than the covenant head through whom we have received condemnation and corruption. The confession is no more controversial (in terms of the history of Christian interpretation) in its article on election: We believe that, all the posterity of Adam being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest Himself such as He is; that is to say, merciful and just: merciful, since He delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom He in His eternal and unchangeable counsel of mere goodness has elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without any respect to their works; just, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves.2

The only mention of election in the Heidelberg Catechism is in the definition of the “only holy, catholic and apostolic church” as “a community chosen for eternal life” (HC 54). It is impossible to conclude from these doctrinal standards of the Reformed churches that predestination was a central dogma from which all else was deduced. Nevertheless, when it was opposed by a notion of conditional election (based on foreknowledge of human response), orthodox Reformed and Lutherans felt obliged to defend unconditional election with considerable passion. For example, although there is no question in Calvin’s Geneva Catechism on predestination per se (in comparison with numerous ones on the sacraments), the Reformer spent quite a lot of time defending it against opponents. In addition, the Reformers challenged the corruption of the ministry of the word and sacraments, sought to reform public worship by bringing it back under the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, and to recover church order, including catechesis, an educated ministry, the service and oversight of the churches by elders, and the discipline of straying members. While the breach 2 The Belgic Confession, art. 16, in The Psalter Hymnal: Doctrinal Standards and Liturgy (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1976), 77.

Is Particular Redemption “Good News”?

with Rome was still fresh, the evangelical churches divided into Lutheran and Reformed, particularly over the Eucharist. So, it is not surprising that in their exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, the confessions and catechisms of the sixteenth century (such as the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism) give more attention to the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, for example, than to unconditional election. By the second half of the sixteenth century, however, serious threats emerged from within Protestantism itself. In particular, arising in Poland but spreading rapidly, Socinianism was anti-Trinitarian with Pelagian tendencies as well. A bright student of Theodore Beza, Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) first caught the attention of fellow ministers in the Dutch Reformed church by arguing that the Apostle Paul could not have been describing his experience as a believer in Romans 7. From that point on, Arminius’s preaching and especially writing challenged Reformed orthodoxy and his critics suspected him of building a system on logical deductions of human reasoning, judging God by human experience and morality, rather than according to Scripture. Less than a year after his death, forty-five ministers offered Articles of Remonstrance to the government (States General) of the Netherlands, which called for a special synod of the church to settle the controversy.3 Meeting in 1618 and 1619, the Synod of Dort focused specifically on the denials by the Remonstrants, with other Reformed bodies on the Continent as well as the Church of Scotland and the Church of England sending official delegates. In fact, King James I took special concern to ward off what he believed was “this plague” of Arminianism especially within his realm. It is worth noting that the vast majority of Reformed ministers on both sides of the Channel had already interpreted their standard confessions and catechisms as teaching what many today call “Calvinism,” so that when the controversy arose, Dort’s canons and decrees were widely adopted (even for a brief and shining moment, it turns out, by the patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris). 4 It was Protestantism’s most genuinely ecumenical gathering and statement, although, of course, the Lutherans rejected Reformed and Arminian alike. Given this historical context, one should not see the Canons of Dort as the chief summary of Reformed faith and practice, but as an important part of a fuller confession. It is far more inadequate to reduce Reformed teaching to a five-letter acronym that has no confessional status and arose in twentiethcentury America. In the interest of economy, nuance is lost and the doctrines 3 Richard A. Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 11. 4 See George A. Hadjiantoniou, Protestant Patriarch: The Life of Cyril Lucaris, 1572–1638, Patriarch of Constantinople (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1961).

107

108

Michael Horton

become susceptible to their caricatures. “Total depravity” suggests to many that human beings are only capable of the most egregious crimes at all times, while in fact, Dort teaches otherwise; depravity is comprehensive (no part unfallen) rather than intensive (a complete vitiation of the image of God). Similarly, “irresistible grace” has the connotation of coercion, one being dragged to Christ against his or her will, whereas Dort typically uses the traditional language of “effectual calling” or “regeneration,” adding, “sweetly bending and inclining … no coercion.” So also this grace of regeneration does not treat men as senseless stocks and blocks, nor take away their will and its properties, or do violence thereto; but it spiritually quickens, heals, corrects, and at the same time sweetly and powerfully bends it, that where carnal rebellion and resistance formerly prevailed, a ready and sincere spiritual obedience begins to reign; in which the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consist. Wherefore, unless the admirable Author of every good work so dear with us, man can have no hope of being able to rise from his fall by his own free will, by which, in a state of innocence, he plunged himself into ruin. (CD III/IV, 16; emphasis added)

“Limited atonement” is even less apt for conveying the actual view of Dort, for reasons explained below. Statement of the View As noted above, the phrase “limited atonement,” with the TULIP acronym itself, is of recent vintage (twentieth century). Even if the term presented the orthodox Reformed view accurately, it puts the defender on his or her heels at the outset. Who would want to proclaim a “limited atonement” to the world? More importantly, the term does not connote the proper meaning of the doctrine. The goal in this first section is to define the position from its formulation at Dort and its antecedents throughout the medieval era. First, it should be observed that every Christian interpretation of Christ’s work acknowledges that there is a limit to the atonement in one way or another. The one exception is the universalist position, which has been rejected officially by all branches of Christianity though favored by some significant theologians over the last two centuries.5 The atonement is limited either in its nature or in its scope. If everyone is not saved in the end, then there are two options: 5 On the history of universalism see Michael J. McClymond, The Devil’s Redemption: A New History and Interpretation of Christian Universalism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018).

Is Particular Redemption “Good News”?

(1) Christ secured the salvation of no one, but only made salvation possible (raising the specter that faith—and perhaps repentance and new obedience as well—are the basis rather than instruments of justification). Consequently, the atonement is limited in its nature, what it effects. (2) Christ secured the salvation of all for whom he died—that is, for those chosen by the Father before the foundation of the world, given to the Son as his bride, and called effectually and kept by the Spirit. In this view, Christ’s work is limited in its purpose or scope. As the seventeenth-century Puritan John Owen observed, every position that recognizes that some will finally be lost places a limit on the atonement at some point: either it is limited in its extent or its effect. Owen summarizes the options: Christ died for (1) all of the sins of all people; (2) some of the sins of all people; or (3) all of the sins of some people.6 If unbelief is a sin, and some people are finally condemned, then there is at least one sin for which Christ did not make adequate satisfaction. Particular redemption represents Owen’s third option. Exegetical Grounds The Good News everywhere announced in the scriptures is that God has reconciled us to himself through Christ’s death, that this happened at the cross with Christ’s blood-shedding, and that it has secured an objective forgiveness of sins (Isa. 53:10–11; Matt. 26:28; John 1:29; 3:17; 1 Tim. 1:15; John 4:42, etc.). “Having been reconciled by his death, we will be saved by his life” (Rom. 5:10). All for whom Christ died have been redeemed, reconciled, and saved from the wrath of God. Through faith, we receive this salvation that was accomplished at Golgotha. The “once and for all” accomplishment of Christ in his saving work at the cross leaves nothing for sinners to complete by their own actions, whether their decision or effort (Rom. 9:12–16). This is why the evangelistic appeals in the New Testament are unhesitatingly joyful and full of comfort. All who embrace this gift are assured that Christ’s work has already secured their salvation, the benefits of which they now receive through the gracious work of the Spirit that was included in Christ’s purchase of his people. Moreover, the Scriptures treat Christ’s work as the execution of an intratrinitarian pact. In the eternal councils of the Trinity (the covenant of redemption), the Father elected a certain number of the human race and gave them 6 John Owen, “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ,” Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1966), 10:233.

109

110

Michael Horton

to his Son as their guardian and mediator, with the Spirit pledging to bring them to Christ in order to receive all of the benefits of his mediation. The gift of a chosen people to the Son is a recurring theme in the Gospel of John. Jesus said that he came not to make salvation possible but to actually save “everyone whom the Father has given me.” He adds, “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose none of those whom he has given me, but raise them up at the last day…. For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father” (John 6:37–39, 65). In John 10, Jesus said, “The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep…. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:11, 14–15), which includes Gentiles as well as Jews (v. 16). He even tells those who have rejected him, “but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep” (v. 26), rather than vice versa (i.e., “you are not among my sheep because you do not believe”). Preparing for his crucifixion, Jesus prays, Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him…. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word…. I am asking on their behalf; I am not asking on behalf of the world, but on behalf of those whom you gave me, because they are yours. (John 17:1–2, 6, 9; emphasis added)

Once more, Jesus includes all “who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one” (v. 20). Throughout John’s Gospel, then, there is an unmistakable thread, testifying to an eternal covenant of redemption between the persons of the Trinity, with the Father giving a people to his Son: “all that the Father has given to me.” In the Epistles as well, there is the correspondence between the will and work of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in election, redemption, and calling which creates an unshakable ground of comfort. From the mass of fallen humanity, the Father has elected individuals “in Christ” (Rom. 8:30–34; Eph. 1:4–13).7 Scripture clearly teaches that the Father chose many, but not all, to eternal life and entrusted their salvation to the Son (John 6:38–39; 15:16; 17:9; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:4–5, 7, 15). The intra-trinitarian purpose, of course, includes the Holy Spirit. The Spirit effectually calls the elect and unites them to Christ. Although they do indeed 7 See Stephen M. Baugh, “Galatians 3:20 and the Covenant of Redemption,” Westminster Theological Journal 66:1 (2004): 49–70.

Is Particular Redemption “Good News”?

believe in Christ, it is because of God’s sovereign grace rather than their own free will: the Spirit brings the elect to Christ, giving them faith (John 1:12–13; 6:44; 15:16; Rom. 8:30; 9:6–24; Eph. 2:8; 2 Thess. 2:13). Chosen in Christ “before the foundation of the world,” the elect are redeemed by Christ and united to Christ by the Spirit (Eph. 1:3–14). Luke reports that when a group of Gentiles heard the gospel, “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). Our entire salvation is credited not to the cooperation of sinners with God, but to the cooperation of the persons of the Trinity. In unity with the Father and the Spirit, the Son’s purpose was to save the elect. It is not only the Reformed who affirm unconditional election and the regeneration and preservation of the elect. These are Augustinian doctrines held by the most highly regarded medieval theologians as well as by confessional Lutherans. However, the latter (along with so-called moderate Calvinists) maintain that particular redemption is not taught in Scripture but is rather the result of a rationalistic demand for logical coherence. From the passages cited thus far, such an assumption is refuted; even if one remains unpersuaded, it is clear that Reformed churches base their conviction on weighty passages.8 Having said this, logical consistency is demanded by the ecumenical doctrine of the Trinity, according to which the external works of the Godhead are always undivided. The persons do not have separate wills. It is impossible that the Father should elect some to salvation in Christ and the Spirit should apply this redemption to the elect alone while the Son dies with the purpose of saving everyone. The work of the Son and the Spirit execute the one will and one purpose that they share in their ineffable unity with the Father. The apostolic proclamation of the gospel is not, “God has made salvation possible for everyone.” Rather, it is that no charge can be brought against “God’s elect,” since Christ has redeemed them and intercedes for them in heaven (Rom. 8:33–34). Therefore, Christ’s death is referred to as “the blood of the eternal covenant” (Heb. 13:20). Peter wrote to believers as those who are “chosen…unto obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling with his blood” (1 Peter 1:2). The rest are “the objects of wrath—prepared for destruction” (Rom. 9:22). Prior to their decision—indeed their existence—God elected Jacob and rejected Esau, exhibiting God’s prerogative to show mercy on whomever he chooses (Rom. 9:1–21). Jesus redeemed his elect (Rom. 8:32–35), his sheep (John 10:11, 15), his church (Ac 20:28; Eph. 5:25–27), and his people (Matt. 1:21). He gave “his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28; 26:28; cf. Isa. 53:12; Heb. 9:28). Sent to fulfill 8 Robert Kolb and Carl R. Trueman, Between Wittenberg and Geneva: Lutheran and Reformed Theology in Conversation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017), 83.

111

112

Michael Horton

the Father’s purpose, Jesus was confident that “none of all that he has given me” will be lost but will be raised on the last day (John 6:38–39). The Savior entered Paradise as conqueror with the triumphant announcement, “Here am I and the children whom God has given me” (Heb. 2:13). All of this shows “the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose,” which was “guaranteed by an oath, so that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible that God would prove false, we who have taken refuge might be strongly encouraged to seize the hope set before us” (Heb. 6:17–18). “He has…accomplished redemption for his people” (Luke 1:68 NASB). Particular redemption ensures that the focus of the gospel is Christ rather than the believer. Christ’s redemption is not made effectual by our repentance, faith, and new obedience. Rather, we repent, believe, and follow Christ because his redemption is effectual for everyone for whom he died. All who believe in Christ are assured that they were saved objectively, two thousand years ago, outside Jerusalem. It is accomplished, not just provided. However, short of affirming universal salvation, the alternative views hold that in spite of Christ’s objective work many for whom he died will be finally lost, bearing their own judgment. But what then of Christ’s promise above that he will not lose any of those whom the Father had given him? Karl Barth’s position illustrates this problem. In his view, everyone is elect in Christ and redeemed by Christ: objectively saved and justified. However, he leaves open the possibility that some may be finally lost.9 However, if one person for whom Christ died is lost—even potentially or hypothetically, then his death did not actually save anyone. The only way to maintain the objectivity of Christ’s saving work on the cross as well as a universal atonement is to deny the possibility that any person will be finally condemned. If the notion of universal election is exegetically untenable, however, the concept of universal salvation is all the more so. Calvinists have proclaimed that Christ is the all-sufficient Savior for all people everywhere who believe, and that there is not a single sin—past, present, or future—that can separate them from the love of God in Jesus Christ. They have not looked for one’s election or redemption within oneself, but outside of oneself. Yet one can only do so because the objective judgment of God has been dealt with decisively, fully, and finally, at the cross, rather than in our subjective experience. If Christ’s sin-bearing does not actually bear away God’s wrath for every person for whom he died, then, as Herman Bavinck concludes, “The center of gravity has been shifted from Christ and located in the Christian.”

9 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, trans. G. W. Bromiley, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (New York: T&T Clark, 1956–1975), II/2, 417–23; III/2, 136; IV/1, 91, 140, 410.

Is Particular Redemption “Good News”?

Instead of Christ’s objective work, “Faith is the true reconciliation with God.”10 In this view, then, faith not only receives this reconciliation but accomplishes it, and faith becomes a saving work—the basis of, rather than the instrument of, receiving God’s forgiving and renewing grace. Historical Precedent The Reformation recovered the apostolic teaching of an entirely forensic justification, apart from any merits other than Christ’s. Although Augustine and his heirs—including Thomas Aquinas—regarded justification as a process (i.e., sanctification), they emphasized that salvation was by God’s grace alone. So, ironically, the teachings of the Reformed wing of the Reformation that are most controversial among Protestants today were taught by important theologians of the Middle Ages. Aquinas wrote, From all eternity some are preordained and directed to heaven; they are called the predestined ones: “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children according to the good pleasure of his will” [Eph. 1:5]. From all eternity, too, it has been settled that others will not be given grace, and these are called the reprobate.11

Drawing upon Romans 9:11–13, Ephesians 1:4–11 and Malachi 1:2–3, Aquinas added, Divine choice is the reason for the distinction: “…according as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.” God predestines because he loves…. The choice is not dictated by any goodness to be discovered in those who are chosen; there is no antecedent prompting of God’s love.12

In fact, lodging the cause of election in the foreknowledge of human decision and action, said Aquinas, is the fountainhead of Pelagianism.13 10 Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 3:469. 11 Thomas Aquinas, III Contra Gentiles 164; Disputations, VI de Veritate, I, in St. Thomas Aquinas: Theological Texts, trans. Thomas Gilby (Durham, N.C.: Labyrinth, 1982; Oxford University Press edition, 1955). 12 Thomas Aquinas, III Contra Gentiles 168; Disputations, VI de Veritate, I, in St. Thomas Aquinas: Theological Texts, trans. Thomas Gilby Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas Aquinas: Theological Texts. 13 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae I, q. 23, a. 5.

113

114

Michael Horton

Thus, in the High Middle Ages, the scholastic formula concerning Christ’s work emerged: “sufficient for the world, but efficient for the elect only.” This formula was affirmed in the Canons of Dort (II, 3): “This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.”14 However, by the late Middle Ages, the popular theology of the era had been captured in the slogan, “God will not deny his grace to those who do what lies within them” (facientibus quod in se est deus non denegat gratiam). Thomas Bradwardine, the fourteenth-century archbishop of Canterbury, recalled his discovery of God’s electing grace from his own reading of Romans: Idle and a fool in God’s wisdom, I was misled by an unorthodox error at a time when I was still pursuing philosophical studies. Sometimes I went to listen to the theologians discussing this matter [of grace and free will], and the school of Pelagius seemed to me nearest the truth…. In this philosophical faculty I seldom heard a reference to grace, except for some ambiguous remarks. What I heard day in and day out was that we are masters of our own free acts, that ours is the choice to act well or badly, to have virtues or sins, and much more along this line…. But every time I listened to the Epistle reading in church and heard how Paul magnified grace and belittled free will—as in the case in Romans 9, “It is obviously not a question of human will and effort, but of divine mercy,” and its many parallels—grace displeased me, ungrateful as I was…. However, even before I transferred to the faculty of theology, the text mentioned came to me as a beam of grace and, captured by a vision of the truth, it seemed I saw from afar how the grace of God precedes all good works…. That is why I express my gratitude to Him who has given me this grace as a gift.15

Bradwardine wrote The Cause of God against the Pelagians in response to “the new Pelagians who oppose our whole presentation of predestination and reprobation, attempting either to eliminate them completely or, at least, to show that they are dependent on our merits.”16 “I received it all from Staupitz,” Luther said of his mentor, Johann von Staupitz, the head of the Augustinian Order in Germany, whose most famous work was titled Eternal Predestination and Its Execution in Time.17 “And thus the claim for man, namely, that he is master over his works from beginning to end, is 14 Canons of Dort, II, 3, in The Psalter Hymnal, 99. 15 Cited by Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought Illustrated by Key Documents (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 135. 16 Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation, 151. 17 Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation, 175ff.

Is Particular Redemption “Good News”?

destroyed,” Staupitz wrote. “So, therefore, the origin of the works of Christian life is predestination, its means is justification, and its aim is glorification or thanksgiving—all these are the achievements not of nature but of grace.” Staupitz even repeated the familiar formula that Christ’s death is sufficient for the world but efficient for the elect only, along with a rigorous defense of the perseverance of the saints.18 So, when in 1525 Luther launched his salvo, The Bondage of the Will, against Erasmus, he was offering a bold defense of traditional Augustinian theology. Although he had not yet arrived at his mature understanding of justification, Luther’s Lectures on Romans (1515–1516) were in this same Augustinian vein. “The second argument” against predestination, he says, is that “God desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4)…. These verses must always be understood as pertaining to the elect only, as the apostle says in 2 Tim. 2:10, “everything for the sake of the elect.” For in an absolute sense Christ did not die for all, because he says: “This is my blood which is poured out for you” and “for many”—he does not say: for all—“for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 14:24, Matt. 26:28).19

While not retracting this statement, his later ministry emphasized Christ’s death for the world but in ways that Reformed theology also affirms. Embracing unconditional election, the orthodox Lutherans confess in the Formula of Concord (1577) that it is “a comforting article”: “Accordingly we believe and maintain that if anybody teaches the doctrine of the gracious election of God to eternal life in such a way that disconsolate Christians can find no comfort in this doctrine but are driven to doubt and despair, or in such a way that the impenitent are strengthened in their self-will, he is not teaching the doctrine according to the Word and will of God.”20 At the same time, Lutherans reject particular redemption in the Book of Concord (Solid Declaration, art. 11). According to the longest of the Church of England’s Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1563/71), The godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh in their earthly 18 Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation, 186. 19 Luther, Lectures on Romans (1515–1516), in Luther’s Works, ed. J. Pelikan and H. Lehman (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), 25:375–76. 20 The Book of Concord, trans. and ed. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959), 497.

115

116

Michael Horton

members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God.21

Since Cranmer, all of the archbishops of Canterbury were staunch Calvinists, until William Laud.22 Delegates from the Church of England were sent to the Synod of Dort, where orthodox Calvinism was affirmed. Although Anabaptists inclined toward a more semi-Pelagian soteriology, Calvinistic Baptists in England adopted the Westminster Confession’s articles on the doctrines of grace in the London Baptist Confession.23 With this historical prologue in place, the balance of this essay focuses on the Reformed understanding of Christ’s saving work on the cross. With Dort in mind, this summary and argumentation situates the question concerning the atonement’s extent in the wider context of its nature. The Relationship of the Atonement’s Extent to its Nature The Dort divines themselves recognized the inseparability of the atonement’s nature and scope in their design of the canons. In other words, the question is not merely “For whom did Christ die?” (scope), but “What did Christ accomplish for such beneficiaries?” (nature). In the second of the Articles of Remonstrance, Arminians said that Christ’s work is sufficient for the world but is only made effectual by human acceptance. Thus, while the Arminians chided the Calvinists for not being able to make a full-throated, unqualified affirmation that Christ died for each and every person, the Calvinists maintained that Arminians could not tell people that at the cross Christ actually saved them. Instead, their response became the basis of whether Christ’s work is effective in their case.24

21 W. H. Griffith Thomas, ed., The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, with the text of the Articles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 236. 22 After Cranmer, to be specific, Edmund Grindal, John Whitgift, Richard Bancroft, and George Abbot preceded Laud, who then turned the tide toward Arminianism. The only exception is Cardinal Reginald Pole, who held the position during the restoration of Roman Catholicism under Queen Mary. 23 See Hadjiantoniou, Protestant Patriarch. 24 Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, Arminius: Theologian of Grace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 189–92.

Is Particular Redemption “Good News”?

It is assumed by many critics that particular redemption is the result of little more than logical deduction from a predestinarian system.25 A cursory glance at Dort’s relevant statements, however, exhibits a concern to move from one scripturally-grounded argument to another. The divines begin with Scripture, emphasizing that the cross is God’s way of being just and merciful simultaneously: God is not only supremely merciful, but also supremely just. And his justice requires (as he has revealed himself in his Word) that our sins committed against his infinite majesty should be punished, not only with temporal but with eternal punishments, both in body and soul; which we cannot escape, unless satisfaction be made to the justice of God (II, 1).

Remonstrants (Arminians) like the great jurist and theologian Hugo Grotius wanted to avoid the Socinian position (a denial of the need for Christ’s death altogether) without falling into the arms of Reformed orthodoxy. Nevertheless, even Grotius’s position (usually identified as the “Moral Government Theory”) denied that God’s justice required full and complete satisfaction. In spite of its intent (viz., to uphold God’s justice by exhibiting in Christ’s death how seriously God takes sin), this view actually undermined it. Rather than teaching a full satisfaction for every sin, his theory undermined it by insisting that instead of requiring actual justice, all that was required was a public demonstration of God’s serious offense at sin and the sinner’s sincere effort at amendment of life.26 Consequently, the delegates at Dort wanted to begin their defense of particular redemption by focusing on the nature of Christ’s work before treating its scope. They recognized that divine justice is not something that can be relaxed. Like his other attributes, justice is intrinsic to God’s simple being. Unlike mankind, God does not possess these attributes; he is love, justice, holiness, life and all perfection. God never experiences inner turmoil, negotiating between love and justice. None of his attributes can be diminished or subordinated to others. He is love when he judges and he loves justly. It is at the cross especially where we recognize this truth. If God is to save sinners, it cannot be by relaxing his law, but only because he has found a way to be “just and the justifier of the 25 Richard Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from John Calvin to William Perkins (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 1–38. Cf. Francois Wendel, “Justification and Predestination in Calvin,” Readings in Calvin’s Theology, ed. Donald K. McKim (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 160. 26 Jeremy Seth Geddert, Hugo Grotius and the Modern Theology of Freedom: Transcending Natural Rights (New York: Routledge, 2017), 183.

117

118

Michael Horton

one who has faith in Christ” (Rom. 3:26). And this is precisely where the second article led: Since, therefore, we are unable to make that satisfaction in our own persons, or to deliver ourselves from the wrath of God, he has been pleased of his infinite mercy to give his only-begotten Son for our Surety, who was made sin, and because a curse for us and in our stead, that he might make satisfaction to divine justice on our behalf.

The Remonstrants were well-aware that such a view (held by the church fathers and the better theologians of the Middle Ages) entailed particular redemption: that is, that Christ died to save the elect. After all, if Christ satisfied divine justice for every sin, then all for whom he died are objectively redeemed. In fact, many medieval theologians recognized this entailment with the common formula, “Christ’s death is sufficient for the world, efficient for the elect only.” It is precisely this formula that Dort invoked in Article 3: “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” Article 4 lodged the infinite sufficiency, worth and value of Christ’s death in the fact that he is not only really man and perfectly holy, but also the only-begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which qualifications were necessary to constitute him our Savior; and, moreover, because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to sin for us.

Articles 5–7 underscored the universal and free promise of the gospel, that all who believe will be saved. “This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God of his own good pleasure sends the gospel” (art. 5). The fact that not all believe it was in no way due to any defect in Christ’s work but only to the one who rejects it (art. 6). “But as many as truly believe, and are delivered and saved from sin and destruction through the death of Christ, are indebted for this benefit solely to the grace of God given them in Christ from everlasting, and not to any merit of their own” (art. 7). According to the Synod of Dort, unbelievers had only themselves to blame, while believers had only God in Christ to thank. Because Christ’s death itself objectively saved sinners rather than making redemption possible if they fulfilled certain conditions, those who did believe were assured that they could

Is Particular Redemption “Good News”?

never come into judgment. It was not their repentance and new obedience that satisfied God’s justice, but Christ’s death alone. It was precisely because Christ won all of the gifts that the Father destined for his elect, that repentance, faith, and new obedience would be given in due time as the elect heard and embraced this gospel. The death of Christ was effective for all the elect in bestowing the gift of justifying faith, thereby bringing 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 these, and only these, 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 of glory in his presence forever (art. 8).

Given this positive statement of the doctrine, it is not surprising that in its rejection of errors on this point, Dort targeted positions of a Remonstrant provenance. The first alleged error (II, rej. 1) was “That God the Father has ordained his Son to the death of the cross without a certain and definite decree to save any,” as if Christ’s death could be successful even if no one had actually been saved (in opposition to passages such as John 10:15, 27 and Isa. 53:10). The second error (II, rej. 2) targeted directly the theory of Grotius described above; namely, that Christ died not to “confirm the new covenant of grace through his blood, but only that he should acquire for the Father the mere right to establish with man such a covenant as he might please, whether of grace or of works.” Dort cited Hebrews 7:22 and 9:16–17, confirming that it is the new covenant, a covenant of grace, that is sealed by Christ’s death; the atonement does not merely make it possible for God to institute another covenant with easier terms (but still based on works). Here Neonomianism of every stripe, including that of Richard Baxter and John Goodwin, was excluded. The gospel was not a new law, as Rome and the Arminians taught, but a gracious promise anchored in God’s unconditional election and fulfilled in Christ. Similarly, paragraph 3 rejected the view that Christ by his satisfaction merited neither salvation itself for anyone, nor faith, whereby this satisfaction of Christ unto salvation is effectually appropriated; but that he merited for the Father only the authority or the perfect will to deal again with man,

119

120

Michael Horton

and to prescribe new conditions as he might desire, obedience to which, however, depended on the free will of man, so that it therefore might have come to pass that either none or all should fulfil these conditions.

The Dort divines went so far as to assert: “For these adjudge too contemptuously of the death of Christ, in no wise acknowledge the most important fruit or benefit thereby gained, and bring again out of hell the Pelagian error.” This verdict, it must be recalled, was not that of a small cadre of hyper-Calvinists, but was the position of mainstream Reformed churches, including the Church of England whose leadership was at this time committed to the views summarized at Dort. King James I, in fact, deemed Arminian preachers “seditious and heretical,” asserting that their teaching is a “corrupt seed which that Enemy of god has sown.”27 At first, this may strike us as an unfair judgment. After all, Arminius himself and certainly evangelical Arminians like John Wesley affirmed original sin, Christ’s substitutionary atonement, and the inability of human beings to repent and believe apart from God’s prevenient grace. Pelagianism denied these doctrines and semi-Pelagianism taught that God gives his grace to those who, apart from it, show an interest of their own free will. However, what especially concerned the Dort delegates is the Neonomian position (represented by Grotius, as well as Episcopius and other Arminian leaders) that Christ’s death merely makes it possible for God to offer salvation on terms other than Christ’s actual sealing of the covenant of grace. In other words, according to this view, Christ’s death did not actually redeem, but rather establishes the basis on which God can justly offer salvation on easier terms than a complete fulfillment of the law. Regardless of how much gracious assistance is given or offered, the basis of justification would seem to be located in the believer rather than in Christ. Thus, the theologians gathered at Dort were convinced that nothing less than the gains of the Reformation were at stake. They argued that one is justified through faith, but on the basis (or because of, for the sake of) Christ: propter Christum per fidei. Believers are justified because of Christ’s merits and satisfaction, whose benefits one receives through faith. The Westminster divines would issue a similar rejection, confessing that sinners were justified not for anything wrought in them or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them

27 Peter White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 159.

Is Particular Redemption “Good News”?

as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (WCF 11.1).

The choice came down to this: either Christ merited for all of his elect their whole salvation, including satisfaction, regeneration, faith, justification, sanctification and glorification or he made it possible for everyone generally to be saved if they complied (at least by purpose and intention) with his law. Dort’s rejection of errors continued this argument in paragraph 4. According to the Remonstrant position, instead of upholding the law by fulfilling it and imputing his meritorious obedience and satisfaction to the elect, Christ somehow made it possible for God to revoke the law’s severe requirement and instead “regards faith itself and the obedience of faith, although imperfect, as [if it were] the perfect obedience of the law, and does esteem it worthy of the reward of eternal life through grace.” The delegates to Dort argued that this plainly contradicted Scripture (e.g., Rom. 3:24–25): “And these proclaim, as did the wicked Socinus, a new and strange justification of man before God, against the consensus of the whole Church.” It is worth noting that Grotius felt obliged to write a defense of his position against the charge of Socinianism. Regardless of whether his view can be described as Socinian simpliciter (which the fathers of Dort do not claim here), Grotius himself saw it as a via media, as have many Arminian theologians ever since. When the paragraph concludes, “against the consensus of the whole Church,” they were not exaggerating. Whatever the errors of Rome, the medieval church taught that Christ’s death was a satisfaction for particular sins—that Christ died in the place of (as a substitute for) the elect. Again, “sufficient for the world, efficient for the elect only,” was the common formula of the schools. According to the Synod, the Remonstrants introduced a new view that, whatever its differences with Socinianism, shifted the basis of salvation from Christ to the believer. Paragraph 5 rejected the error that all people, by virtue of Christ’s death, are no longer liable to condemnation and that “all are free from the guilt of original sin,” whereas Scripture, the synod argued, “teaches that we are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3).” Also rejected (II, rej. 6) was the Remonstrant distinction “between meriting and appropriating,” as if in God’s view everyone is included in Christ’s death, but that, while some obtain the pardon of sin and eternal life, and others do not, this difference depends on their own free will, which joins itself to the grace that is offered without exception, and that it is not dependent on the special gift of mercy,

121

122

Michael Horton

which powerfully works in them…. For these, while they feign that they present this distinction in a sound sense, seek to instill into the people the destructive poison of the Pelagian errors.

In other words, although Christ merited salvation for every person, according to the Remonstrants, the real basis of their salvation is their own appropriation of Christ and His benefits by free will. Arminians rebuffed the charge of Pelagianism—or even Semi-Pelagianism—by insisting that God’s grace is necessary for repentance and faith. It is true that all are born in sin, but it is also true (they argued) that God gives to all sufficient grace to believe if they exercise their free will. This runs counter to the teaching of Scripture, the Dort divines maintained, and even against the standard Augustinian view held by such teachers as Thomas Aquinas, who insisted that sinners required not only sufficient but efficient grace to believe. Since this involves God’s giving particular grace to particular individuals (the elect), withholding it from others, Arminians must reject this teaching as they do particular redemption. As with Christ’s death, so with the Spirit’s application: the work of God makes our cooperation possible, but it does not actually redeem or secure the gifts of regeneration, faith, justification, sanctification, and glorification for anyone. At the end of the day, it is the believer’s “willing and running” that effects salvation. The final paragraph of the second head rejected the error “That Christ neither could die, nor needed to die, and also did not die, for those whom God loved in the highest degree and elected to eternal life, since these do not need the death of Christ.” Citing Galatians 2:20, Romans 8:33–34, John 10:15 and 15:12–13, the divines returned to the point on which they launched this section: God’s love and justice cannot be set in opposition. At the cross, one sees that God found the way to be “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ Jesus.” Subsequent defenses of universal atonement by Arminian theologians typically (though not always, as in the case of Wesley), rejected the doctrine of substitution at least as traditionally understood in the Western church. Referring to penal substitution as “the Calvinistic theory,” H. Orton Wiley asserts, “It is in this attempt to impute our sin to Christ as His own that the weakness of this type of substitution appears.”28 He concludes, “Our final objection to the satisfaction theory is based upon the fact that it leads logically to antinomianism,” for the following reasons: (1) It holds that Christ’s active obedience is imputed to believers in such a manner that it is esteemed by God as done by them. They are, therefore, righteous by proxy. 28 H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill, 1952), 2:241, 245.

Is Particular Redemption “Good News”?

(2) This imputation, in reality, makes Christ’s suffering superfluous; for if He has done for us all that the law requires, why should we be under the necessity of being delivered from penalty by His death? (3) If Christ’s active obedience is to be substituted for that of believers, it shuts out the necessity of personal obedience to the law of God…. Man is therefore left in the position of being tempted to license of every kind, instead of being held strictly accountable for a life of righteousness.29

Wiley points out that Methodist theologian John Miley “is the outstanding representative of the governmental theory in modern times.”30 Wiley himself denies that Christ’s death involved “a substitution in penalty as the merited punishment of sin.”31 Of course, not all Arminians throughout history have rejected substitution (notably, John Wesley for example).32 However, it was certainly the rule in Dutch Arminianism, and in the Anglo-American developments, it became the norm for both the Arminianism leading to Unitarianism and the revivalism of Jonathan Edwards Jr., Nathaniel Taylor, and Charles G. Finney. Drawing on the Dutch Arminian scholar Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), many Arminian theologians found the governmental theory more congenial than penal substitution, as Wiley observes.33 According to this view, God’s nature does not demand absolute justice and the satisfaction of his righteous purposes. Rather, Christ’s death makes it possible for God to offer salvation on easier terms than those required by the law. Christ’s death is therefore not a real payment of a debt. Its efficacy lies in what it shows (viz., God’s just government), not in what it achieves. And yet it turns out to demonstrate merely that God is not just after all, but is willing to justify all who exhibit a new obedience.34 Going even further, the nineteenth-century American revivalist Charles G. Finney developed a scheme that many deemed to be essentially Pelagian, beginning with a rejection of original sin.35 Reflected throughout his Systematic Theology was a commitment to a combination of the moral influence and 29 30 31 32

Wiley, Christian Theology, 2:249. Wiley, Christian Theology, 2:255. Wiley, Christian Theology, 2:257. See Roger Olson on this point in Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2006), 224. 33 Wiley, Christian Theology, 2:241. 34 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 368. 35 Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology (repr., Minneapolis: Bethany, 1976), 31, 179–80, 236. Arminian theologian Roger Olson points out that Finney’s theology is much closer to Pelagianism than to Arminianism (Arminian Theology [Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 2005], 28).

123

124

Michael Horton

moral government theories. It is legally impossible for one person—even Jesus Christ—to fulfill the law and bear the sanctions of violating that law in the place of others, Finney insisted. “If he had obeyed the law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation?”36 The atonement was simply “an incentive to virtue.”37 Rejecting the view that “the atonement was a literal payment of a debt,” Finney could only concede, “It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one.”38 Going beyond most advocates of the subjective theories, Finney insisted that perfect obedience to God’s law was “the sine qua non” of our justification. More recently, Clark Pinnock reflected on his shift from Calvinism to Arminianism. “Obviously it caused me to reduce the precision in which I understood the substitution to take place,” he related. “It caused me to look first at the theory of Anselm and later of Hugo Grotius, both of whom encourage us to view the atonement as an act of judicial demonstration rather than a strict or quantitative substitution as such.” He concluded (perhaps prematurely), “It is my strong impression that Augustinian thinking is losing its hold on present-day Christians.”39 J. Kenneth Grider argues similarly that Christ could not have paid the penalty for sins, since he died for all and yet all are not saved. Of Wiley’s defense of the governmental theory, Grider relates, “Importantly, he helped me to see that the Penal Theory of the Atonement fits Calvinism, and not Arminianism.”40 Again it is important to point out that evangelical Arminians have often been among the most stalwart defenders of Christ’s substitutionary death for sinners. However, according to some of their leading theologians, this should lead them to the doctrine of particular redemption. A second option was that Christ died to make salvation of every person possible. The intent of Christ’s death, according to the Dutch Remonstrants, was to make it possible for God to offer salvation by grace-enabled cooperation—namely, faith and evangelical obedience. It was generally recognized by Arminian theologians that if Christ actually accomplished the salvation of sinners at the cross (beyond making their salvation possible), then all for 36 37 38 39

Finney, Systematic Theology, 206. Finney, Systematic Theology, 209. Finney, Systematic Theology, 209. Clark Pinnock, “From Augustine to Arminius: A Pilgrimage in Theology,” in The Grace of God, The Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 23, 26, 27. 40 J. Kenneth Grider, “The Nature of Wesleyan Theology,” evangelicalarminians.org/the-natureof-wesleyan-theology/. The remainder of this essay is lightly revised from my chapter 4, “Mission Accomplished,” in For Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011).

Is Particular Redemption “Good News”?

whom Christ died are actually saved. John Wiley, therefore, observes, “The penal substitutionary theory leads of necessity either to universalism on the one hand, or unconditional election on the other. Dr. Miley makes the charge that ‘such an atonement, by its very nature, and by immediate result forever frees them from all guilt as a liability to the penalty of sin.’”41 These Arminian theologians recognized that if Christ’s death itself actually accomplished salvation for everyone for whom it was intended, then the only options are Calvinism or universalism. There was another version of this second view. A mediating position between the orthodox Calvinism defined by the Synod of Dort in 1618–1619 and Arminianism became known as “hypothetical universalism” (also “Amyraldianism,” after its architect Moïse Amyraut). Christ bore the sins of every person without exception, but since God knew that no one would embrace Christ apart from the gift of faith, he elected some to receive the benefits of Christ’s work.42 Many evangelical Protestants hold to either an Arminian or Amyraldian view, in either case agreeing with the position expressed by Lewis Sperry Chafer: “Christ’s death does not save either actually or potentially; rather it makes all men savable.”43 Similarly, Robert Lightner says that he rejects the Calvinist view “that the work of Christ on the cross was effective in and of itself.”44 This position, of course, raises a host of questions beyond the nature of Christ’s work. Among other doctrines, one could mention the character of God (Is the satisfaction of justice necessary?), the human condition (Are people by nature able to fulfill certain conditions apart from the grace of regeneration and effectual calling?), the nature of the church (Is it the “company of God’s elect” made only partially visible now or restricted to the visible church of those who profess faith?), and the sacraments (Are they actually God’s means of grace or merely human means of professing faith and obedience?). More to the point, however, if Christ died for every person and yet many are finally lost, then the good news proclaimed to the world is not, “Christ has taken away all of your sins,” but “Christ has made your remission possible if you fulfill certain conditions.” Thus, it would seem, at least faith (if not also repentance and new obedience) becomes the ground rather than the instrument of salvation.

41 Wiley, Christian Theology, 2:246. 42 This position was rejected by Reformed churches in the Helvetic Consensus of 1675. See Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 1:75–80. 43 Lewis Sperry Chafer, “For Whom Did Christ Die?,” Bibliotheca Sacra (October–December 1980): 325. 44 Robert Lightner, “For Whom Did Christ Die?,” in Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody, 1982), 162.

125

126

Michael Horton

In their effort to defend a universal atonement whose efficacy is determined by human response, Arminians and Amyraldians could not—and do not—posit the view that Christ actually saved—objectively and completely—every person for whom he died, such that each would be called and justified, gradually sanctified and finally glorified by grace alone. By contrast, Dort affirmed that the purpose of the triune God has “to this day been powerfully accomplished,” so that the church will always exist and ever prevail against the gates of hell (II, 9). Particular Intent, Universal Invitation For Calvinists, the good news everywhere announced in the scriptures is that God has reconciled believers to himself through Christ’s death, that this happened at the cross with the shedding of Christ’s blood, and that it has secured an objective forgiveness of sins (Isa. 53:10–11; Matt. 26:28; John 1:29; 3:17; 4:42; 1 Tim. 1:15, etc.). “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” (Rom. 5:10). All for whom Christ died have been redeemed, reconciled, and saved from the wrath of God. Through faith one receives this salvation that was accomplished at Golgotha. The “once and for all” accomplishment of Christ in his saving work at the cross leaves nothing for sinners to complete by their own actions, whether their decision or effort (Rom. 9:12–16). This is why the evangelistic appeals in the New Testament are unhesitatingly joyful and full of comfort. All who embrace this gift are assured that Christ’s work has already secured their salvation, the benefits of which they now receive through the gracious work of the Spirit that was included in Christ’s purchase of his people. Yet, they have argued, how can one proclaim the gospel as a universal invitation? Because it is sufficient for every person. The Scriptures unmistakably teach that God loves the world and that Christ died for the world (John 1:29; 3:16; 6:33, 51; Rom. 11:12, 15; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 John 2:2). This emphasis has led some theologians to embrace universal salvation. Officially condemned in the sixth century, Origen’s theory of universal restoration (apokatastasis) held that all spirits (though not bodies), including Lucifer, would be reunited in heavenly bliss.45 Refusing to bind God’s freedom, Barth stopped short of a formal doctrine of universal salvation although his doctrine of election and

45 See The Seven Ecumenical Councils, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 14, ed. Henry R. Percival (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971).

Is Particular Redemption “Good News”?

reconciliation suggests it.46 However, this wavering only increases the anxiety that he is so eager to avoid in what he perceives as the Reformed doctrine. It is at least hypothetically possible that someone who has been chosen by the Father in Christ, redeemed and united to Christ, justified and adopted, may nevertheless not be glorified but suffer condemnation. By contrast, a Calvinist could proclaim that everyone who turns to Christ is chosen, redeemed, called, justified, being sanctified, and will one day be glorified. Moreover, what is the urgency of the missionary enterprise if everyone is already chosen, redeemed, and justified in Christ, regardless of whether they believe in him? What of the logic for evangelism that one finds in Romans 10, where justification comes through faith, which comes by hearing the gospel, and therefore requires the sending of its proclaimers? Confessional Lutheranism has also taught a universal and objective atonement, but it also held to a particular election of many, not all, to salvation in Christ. They have argued that only the elect will be finally saved, but some receive the saving benefits of Christ’s work only for a time and then lose these benefits through mortal sin or unbelief. In this view, then, not all of those for whom Christ died will be saved, in spite of its universal intention.47 Like Barth’s view, the Lutheran confession stresses the sufficiency of Christ but actually affirms that some for whom Christ died—who were in fact saved objectively at the cross—will lose their justification and be condemned at last. All of the elect will be saved, but many who were redeemed and regenerated will not. Lutherans have historically been active in global missions and evangelism. However, it has been difficult for Calvinists to understand how their bold proclamation of Christ’s sufficiency could be consistent with their conviction that the will and work of the Son (redemption) and the Holy Spirit (regeneration) differs from that of the Father (unconditional election). Arminians have been historically energetic evangelists and missionaries. Their proclamation of Christ as the Savior of sinners has been passionate and sincere. Yet, most Reformed theologians have argued that their doctrine could lead them to announce that Christ has only made their redemption possible and that its efficacy lies less in what Jesus did for them than in what they do with Jesus. Although an Arminian evangelist may tell everyone, “Christ died for 46 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, trans. G. W. Bromiley, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (New York: T&T Clark, 1956–1975), II/2, 417–23; III/2, 136; IV/1, 91, 140, 410. For responsible evaluations, see especially G. C. Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth, trans H. R. Boer (London: Paternoster, 1956), 215–34; Garry J. Williams, “Karl Barth and the Doctrine of the Atonement,” in Engaging with Barth: Contemporary Evangelical Critiques, ed. David Gibson and Daniel Strange (Nottingham: Apollos, 2008): 232–72. 47 David Scaer, “Atonement in Lutheran Theology,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 10, no. 4 (Fall 1967): 175–87.

127

128

Michael Horton

each of you,” Calvinists have argued that they cannot mean by this that Christ made satisfaction for each and every one of his or her sins, bearing judgment in their place, securing their immortality by his resurrection. Calvinists have been among the leading evangelists and missionaries in the church. The first Protestant missionaries to the New World were sent from Calvin’s Geneva to Brazil and Calvinists were at the forefront of the modern missionary movement. One only has to recall the names of Whitefield, Edwards, Carey, Taylor, Livingstone, Spurgeon, and so many others. Far from being embarrassed by scriptural invitations for all to come to Christ, Calvinists have celebrated these passages as wonderful “glad tidings.” “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Jesus came not just for the physical descendants of Abraham but to reconcile sinners from every tribe to the Father. We often take for granted that Gentiles are made coheirs with Christ, spiritual children of Abraham along with believing Jews. However, this was a radical message for first-century Jews and Gentiles. It lay at the heart of “the mystery of Christ” unfolded by Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles (Eph. 2:11–3:13), and it is why some Jewish Christians opposed him. This mystery of Jews and Gentiles united in Christ prompted the controversy that was finally resolved at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. One knows that “whoever believes in him” has been chosen, redeemed and called effectually to him, but we do not know whom he has chosen. Consequently, we proclaim Christ as truly sufficient for each and every person who has ever lived. No one who comes will be turned away, because they are his sheep and they hear his voice. All who are united to Christ by the Spirit’s effectual grace belong to the Abrahamic covenant of grace. Jesus is the seed in whom all families of the earth are blessed (Gal. 3:11–18, 28). However, throughout redemptive history, “salvation” always came through a remnant. The world was saved from the judgment of the flood through Noah and his family—eight people total (2 Peter 2:5). He saved Israel and Judah through a remnant. And he saved the whole world in the same way, not merely through a few, but through an innumerable company, having “ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” as “a kingdom and priests to our God” (Rev. 5:9–10). “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). God’s love for the world moved him to choose an innumerable company of enemies to give his Son, even “while we were enemies” (Rom. 5:10), and to unite these sinners to Christ by his Spirit as a massive choir celebrating his mercy and grace into all of eternity. In this way, the world is indeed saved.48 48 See B. B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1942; repr., 1980), esp. 95.

Is Particular Redemption “Good News”?

Calvinists have proclaimed that Christ is “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). They have declared not only generally to all but particularly to each person that Christ’s death is sufficient to save him or her. In the words of the Canons of Dort, “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.”49 Because the death of Christ is sufficient for everyone, no one is left out except those who refuse this gift. Calvinists have asked that if the gospel proclamation is not, “All you who are elect, come!” but “whosoever will” (Rev 22:17), how does one know if he or she is truly one for whom Christ died? According to the Reformed confession, it is by trusting in Christ. “My sheep hear my voice” (John 10:27). They do not turn within to find their election, but discover it by looking to Christ. John Bradford, an Edwardian divine and martyr under Mary’s reign in England, wrote that this doctrine was a “most principal” tenet since it places our salvation entirely in God’s hands. “This, I say, let us do, and not be too busybodies in searching the majesty and glory of God, or in nourishing doubting of salvation: whereto we all are ready enough.”50 With Luther, Calvin cautioned against prying into the “hidden God.” Rather, one must find predestination in Christ. Even in the final edition of the Institutes (1559), Calvin declared concerning the doctrine of justification that one must “consider it in such a way as to keep well in mind that this is the principal article of the Christian religion” (3.11.1).51 The discussion of election began with the pastoral concern for assurance: “We shall never be clearly convinced as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from the fountain of God’s free mercy, till we are acquainted with his eternal election” (3.21.1). But speculation on this topic is deadly. He wrote, The discussion of predestination—a subject of itself rather intricate—is made very perplexed, and therefore dangerous, by human curiosity, which no barriers can restrain from wandering into forbidden labyrinths, and soaring beyond its sphere, as if determined to leave none of the Divine secrets unscrutinized or unexplored …. [The curious] will obtain no satisfaction to his curiosity, but will enter a labyrinth from which he will find no way to depart. For it is unreasonable that man should scrutinize with impunity those things which the Lord has determined to be hidden in himself. (3.21.1) 49 Canons of Dort, II, 3, in The Psalter Hymnal, 99. 50 John Bradford, The Writings of John Bradford (Cambridge University Press, 1858), 2:316. 51 All parenthetical citations from the Institutes in this essay are from Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., trans. John Allen (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, 1949).

129

130

Michael Horton

It follows, then, said Calvin, that if we want to know anything about predestination in general, or our own election in particular, we are to look no further than Christ and the Gospel: “as soon as the Lord closes his sacred mouth, he shall also desist from further inquiry” (3.21.5). We cannot obtain certainty of our election by attempting “to penetrate to the eternal decree of God,” for “we shall be engulfed in the profound abyss.” We must not seek to “soar above the clouds” but must be “satisfied with the testimony of God in his external word” (3.24.3–4). When timid souls seek to discover their election beyond this external word—“Come unto Christ all ye sinners”—they will doubtless question their salvation, occupied with the question, “Whence can you obtain salvation but from the election of God? And what revelation have you received of election?” These questions can only torment the conscience, Calvin explained. “No error can affect the mind, more pestilent than such as disturbs the conscience, and destroys its peace and tranquility towards God,” than such speculations. The discussion of predestination is a dangerous ocean unless the believer is safely standing on Christ the rock (3.24.4). Calvin asserted: So how does one obtain assurance of election from the external word? In the first place, if we seek the fatherly liberality and propitious heart of God, our eyes must be directed to Christ, in whom alone the Father is well pleased…. Consider and investigate it as much as you please, you will not find its ultimate scope extend beyond this…. If we are chosen in Christ, we shall find no assurance of election in ourselves; nor even in God the Father, considered alone, abstractly from the Son. Christ, therefore, is the mirror, in which it behooves us to contemplate our election; and here we may do it with safety (3.24.5).

Embracing Christ alone, one is assured of “every spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ,” including election (Eph. 1:3–4). Further, explained Calvin, to be “in Christ” is an ecclesiological matter: it is to be in the church, which is Christ’s body. Thus, the external word is joined to baptism, catechesis, the Eucharist, and the discipline and fellowship of the Savior’s commonwealth. Although the reprobate are scattered among the elect in this community, there is no sure way of separating the sheep from the goats until the last judgment. Assurance of election, therefore, is linked to the Spirit’s blessing of the proper use of the means of grace and incorporation into the visible church (3.24.5–6). Thus, certainty of election is obtained neither within oneself nor by oneself apart from Christ, but in Christ and with his chosen people. Calvinists have proclaimed Christ as the all-sufficient Savior for all people everywhere, and when people do believe, one assures them that there is not a

Is Particular Redemption “Good News”?

single sin—past, present, or future—“that can separate them from the love of God in Jesus Christ” (Rom. 8:39). How does one know this? Is it because of what a person has made of Christ or because of what he has made of them? On the contrary, Paul replied, “And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” (Rom. 8:30–35).

131

Donald Sinnema

8.

Church and State Relations at the Synod of Dort (1618–1619)

The Synod of Dort marked the triumph of orthodox Calvinism over Arminianism after about two decades of religious unrest in the Netherlands. While this synod is a fascinating study in theological controversy, it also affords a revealing picture of church and state relationships at one of the critical moments in the history of Calvinism. This relationship itself was an important, but secondary, matter of controversy, though it was not openly discussed on the floor of the synod. The Arminians (Remonstrants) favored an Erastian subordination of religious practice and church organization to Christian civil authorities;1 the orthodox Reformed (Contra-Remonstrants) favored the right of the church to control its own affairs, though they had come to live with a measure of state interference. This article surveys the copious evidence of the complex intertwinement of church and state at the Synod of Dort throughout the six months of its proceedings, and it explores the nature of this church-state relationship and its limits. Background Church-state relations in the Dutch Reformation have a rather distinctive history compared to other countries where civil authority Protestantized the church by magisterial reform. The Dutch Reformed church developed “under the cross” and in exile, so its first church order of the Synod of Emden (1571) allowed no role for the state in the church. However, this same synod required all ministers to sign the Belgic Confession (1561), which included an article on civil government (art. 36): Their office and duty is not only to control and watch over the civil state and politics, but also over ecclesiastical matters in order to prevent and remove all idolatry and

1 This view was best articulated by Johannes Uytenbogaert, Tractaet van t’Ampt ende Authoriteyt eener Hoogher Christelicker Overheydt in Kerckelicke Saecken (’s-Gravenhage: Hillebrant Iacobsz, 1610).

134

Donald Sinnema

false worship, so that the kingdom of antichrist may be overthrown and the kingdom of Jesus Christ promoted; and to see that the word of the gospel is everywhere preached, so that God may be honored and served by everyone, as he requires and demands in his Word.2

As the Reformed church became more established in the 1570s, the Dutch state began to exert an influence on ecclesiastical affairs, although the church resisted. This resulted in a church polity tug-of-war. For example, the national Synod of The Hague held in 1586 drew up its own church order. Although this church order allowed, for the first time, one or two representatives of the civil magistrate in consistory meetings,3 it was later rejected by the States of Holland. They, in turn, asked a commission to draw up a church order in 1591, which allowed the state a role in appointing clergy, and control over who could attend the Lord’s Supper. Though not universally adopted, Dutch Reformed churches widely used the 1586 church order; the Remonstrant faction tended to follow the 1591 order.4 A primary indication of growing political influence was the presence of state delegates at the annual provincial synods, where they first began to appear in 1578. The last national synod to be held before the Synod of Dort was in 1586, though the 1586 church order prescribed that such national assemblies ordinarily be held every three years (art. 44). For various reasons, the Dutch government (States General), under the influence of the grand pensionary Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, did not allow the church to hold a national synod. Oldenbarnevelt sympathized with the Remonstrants. By the time of the Synod of Dort, the Reformed church in the Dutch Republic was not a state church, but rather a privileged church, the only church that was publicly recognized. Convening and Opening of the Synod After years of theological controversy, the political climate was shifting from Oldenbarnevelt toward Prince Maurice, who controlled the military and sym2 Translation of first Dutch edition of 1562. F. Los, Tekst en Toelichting van de Geloofsbelijdenis der Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk (Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon, 1929), 299–301. All translations are my own. 3 F. L. Rutgers, ed., Acta der Nederlandsche Synoden der Zestiende Eeuw (Dordrecht: J. van den Tol, 1980), 495. 4 For a fuller overview of this history, see Jan den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt (Cambridge: University Press, 1973), 2:435–39. These church orders are printed in Rutgers, Acta, and C. Hooijer, ed., Oude Kerkordeningen der Nederlandsche Hervormde Gemeenten (1563–1638) (Zalt-Bommel: J. Noman en Zoon, 1865).

Church and State Relations at the Synod of Dort (1618–1619)

pathized with the Contra-Remonstrant cause. The time was ripe for a national synod to be convened by the States General. By June 1617, four of the seven Dutch provinces in the States General were arguing for a national synod as the best means to resolve the unrest caused by religious controversy in the land. In November 1617, the majority of the States General approved a list of seventeen Articles to Convene a national synod, which defined the structure of the upcoming synod.5 These Articles to Convene declared that the States themselves would convene the synod. They determined the time and the place.6 They specified the number of delegates of various kinds: six delegates from each provincial synod; professors of theology from each of the Dutch academies; three or four theologians to be invited from eight foreign lands; and two state delegates from each province. The Articles determined preparations and set the basic agenda: first, the controversial Five Articles of the Remonstrants must be treated; then, matters referred by the provincial synods to the national synod would be considered. They determined a procedure: by oath, delegates must agree to use the Word of God alone, and no human writings, as the standard of truth in any dispute of doctrine.7 And finally, the Articles required the synod to report its decisions to the States General to be approved. Since the state delegates played a major role at the synod, article 16 of the Articles is especially noteworthy: Each province shall name two godly persons,… who profess the Reformed religion and are members of the Church, so that they, being fully authorized by their honorable States, may regularly attend and be present in the synod and direct and guide (bestueren ende beleyden, dirigant ac moderentur) all its actions, so as to prevent all disorder and confusion.8

5 J. G. Smit, ed., Resolutiën der Staten-Generaal, Nieuwe Reeks 1610-1670 (’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1975), 3:138–39, 231, 236–37, 263–66 (hereafter: Resolutiën). Gelderland, Zeeland, Friesland, and Groningen favored a national synod; Utrecht, Overijssel, and especially Holland continued to object. Their key objection was that the Union of Utrecht (1579) stipulated that religious matters were under provincial jurisdiction. The final version of these Articles to Convene is printed in Acta Synodi Nationalis,... Autoritate Illustr. et Praepotentum DD. Ordinum Generalium Foederati Belgii Provinciarum, Dordrecti Habitae Anno MDCXVIII et MDCXIX (Leiden: Elzevir, 1620), session 4 (hereafter: Acta). 6 The time was later changed to November 1, 1618, and the location to Dordrecht. 7 Thus, the States General excluded the use of the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism as confessional standards of orthodoxy. 8 Acta, session 4.

135

136

Donald Sinnema

During the summer months of 1618, the three holdout provinces of Overijssel, Utrecht, and Holland finally agreed to the synod, under pressure from Prince Maurice, who had just tipped the balance of political power by forcing the local militia in these provinces to disband.9 Eighteen state delegates were chosen by the provinces to represent the States General at the synod. They were leading political officials, six from Holland and two from each of the other provinces.10 At the synod, the state delegates had their own president—weekly they took turns presiding. And they had their own secretary, Daniel Heinsius. The States General drew up a set of secret instructions for the state delegates,11 who were to open the synod, and receive and examine the credentials of all delegates. They were to assure that the synod treated no matters that were political or related to the broader church outside the Netherlands. Only the ecclesiastical matters mentioned in the Articles to Convene must be treated. If the synod would approve a uniform Church Order, the state delegates had to take care that the synod did not infringe upon the rights and privileges of the provinces, especially the right of patronage.12 The state delegates and the foreign theologians were to have not only a deliberative voice, but also a decisive voice in the synod. They were to promote the well-being, peace and unity of the Dutch churches and society, and advance the Reformed Christian religion. Finally, they were to regularly correspond with the States General. The state delegates attended the regular sessions of the synod, but they also held their own separate meetings (sixty-nine times) and kept their own acts. During the course of the synod, they sent at least nineteen reports to the States General. The States General, and not the synod, issued invitations to ten foreign lands to send Reformed theologians to help the Dutch settle the Arminian controversy. In most of these cases, the invitations were sent to the rulers of these lands to select and send their best theologians.13 When these theologians arrived in the 9 Resolutiën, 3:445–46, 463, 470. 10 Holland requested and received six state delegates because of the high number of Reformed churches in this province—about 500. Resolutiën, 3:537, 539, 544, 548. On the role of the eighteen state delegates, see Donald Sinnema, Christian Moser, and Herman Selderhuis, eds., Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationali Dordrechtanae (1618-1619) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), I:liii–lxi (hereafter: ADSND). 11 These instructions, in fifteen articles, are printed in ADSND, I:467–71. 12 Especially the province of Groningen did not want the synod to examine whether the right of patronage was in agreement with God’s Word. Resolutiën, 3:560. 13 The States General sent invitations to the King of Great Britain, the Elector of the Palatinate, the Landgrave of Hesse, the Duke of Nassau, the Margrave of Brandenburg, to the republics and churches of Switzerland, Geneva, Bremen and Emden, and to the Reformed churches of

Church and State Relations at the Synod of Dort (1618–1619)

Netherlands, they typically first reported to The Hague where they presented their credentials to the States General. A prime example is the case of Great Britain, where King James I was invited to send several theologians. James selected five theologians headed by Bishop George Carleton. James sent them with special instructions to take a moderate position on controversial matters, make decisions agreeable with Scripture and the doctrine of the Church of England, and at all times consult with Dudley Carleton, the British ambassador in the Netherlands.14 On entering the Netherlands, the British theologians were introduced by their ambassador to the States General.15 The provincial synods of the Netherlands were allowed to select their own delegates, although the number had been determined by the States General.16 In general, each synod sent four ministers and two elders. On November 12, 1618, the Dutch delegates and the state delegates met in a preparatory meeting to discuss how to open the synod, the seating order, and the way of voting. It was decided that the state delegates should have the best seating on one side of the hall. On the other side would be the foreign theologians, seated in the order of their political status with the Netherlands—the English first. Finally, the Dutch delegations would be seated according to the rank their provinces held in the States General. Regarding the method of voting, it was decided that each of the nineteen provincial and foreign delegations would have one vote, as was the pattern in the States General, where each province had a vote.17 When the synod opened on November 13, the state delegates welcomed and seated all the members. After an opening prayer, Dordrecht minister Balthasar Lydius thanked them that the States General had not despised the request for a national synod, but, following in the footsteps of emperor Constantine and others, had consented to convene this eminent assembly at such great expense. Then, Martinus Gregorii, president of the state delegates, officially opened the

14

15 16 17

France. King Leo XIII of France prevented four theologians selected by a French synod from attending, and due to Lutheran opposition, the Margrave of Brandenburg decided not to send his theologians. Geeraert Brandt, Historie der Reformatie en andre Kerkelyke Geschiedenissen in en ontrent de Nederlanden (Rotterdam: Barent Bos, 1704), 3:9–12. The full instructions are printed in Anthony Milton, ed., The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2005), 92–94. In one debate in the synod (session 134) the English pointed out that they were “delegated by his serene majesty the King, not by their churches.” John Hales, Golden Remains (London: Thomas Newcomb, 1673), 2:153. Resolutiën, 3:548–49. In the Articles to Convene the synod (art. 3). On October 13, the States General determined the total number to be 56. Resolutiën, 3:521. H. Kaajan, De Pro-Acta der Dortsche Synode in 1618 (Rotterdam: T. De Vries, 1914), 17–20.

137

138

Donald Sinnema

synod, and at the end of his speech, he stated that decisions on ecclesiastical matters would be left to the synod.18 In session four, the state delegates instructed that the Articles to Convene the national synod be read so that matters would be conducted according to the directions of the States General. Since article 9 required that the Five Remonstrant Articles be first on the agenda, a discussion took place on how the Remonstrants should be called to the synod. With the advice of the state delegates, it was decided that several leading Remonstrants should be cited to appear before the synod. How many would be summoned, and who, was left to judgment of the state delegates.19 The state delegates and the synod drew up separate citation letters that were sent to thirteen leading Remonstrants. In the next three weeks, while waiting for the cited Remonstrants to appear, the synod dealt with several non-doctrinal matters referred to it by the provincial synods: a new Dutch Bible translation, catechism services and catechism instruction, baptism of slave children, preparation for the ministry, and printing abuses.20 The sources do not indicate that the state delegates participated in the discussion of these ecclesiastical matters. Procedural Debates with the Remonstrants For five weeks after the Remonstrants appeared (December 5), the synod was largely entangled in procedural debates with the Remonstrants.21 On December 10, synod president Bogerman asked the Remonstrants to begin explaining their Five Articles. However, they wished first to read a paper that would prepare the way for the main issue. Bogerman refused, but the state delegates ordered that it be read.22 In this paper, the Remonstrants asserted that they could not recognize the synod as their lawful judge, and they demanded that twelve conditions be met before they would accept the synod’s authority. Basically, they wanted a conference between equal parties.23 This sparked a heated debate about the lawful authority of the synod. 18 19 20 21

ADSND, I:9–11; II.2:8–12. ADSND, I:14. On these matters, see Kaajan, Pro-Acta. For an analysis of these procedural debates, see Donald Sinnema, “Procedural Wrangling in the Remonstrant Case at the Synod of Dort (1618–1619),” in More than Luther: The Reformation and the Rise of Pluralism in Europe, ed. Karla Boersma & Herman Selderhuis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019), 289–306. 22 ADSND, I:42; Praestantium ac Eruditorum Virorum Epistolae Ecclesiasticae et Theologicae (Amsterdam: Henricus Wetstenius, 1684), 517. 23 Printed in ADSND, II.2:308–33.

Church and State Relations at the Synod of Dort (1618–1619)

As the Remonstrants persisted in their view, the state delegates repeatedly ordered them to submit to the synod. Finally, without recognizing the synod as a lawful judge, the Remonstrants yielded somewhat and agreed to “state, explain, and defend” their views of their Five Articles, as stipulated in the citation letters. Further procedural debates ensued on whether election or reprobation should be treated first and whether the Remonstrants would have the freedom to refute opposing views.24 On December 28, Bogerman began to question the Remonstrants for a fuller explanation of their views. This sparked a new set of procedural debates on the validity of asking questions and the necessity of answering individually. The Remonstrants refused to answer questions without a guarantee of the freedom they sought.25 At this point, the proceedings were locked in an impasse. In this situation, the synod decided to soften its position and conceded to the Remonstrants the right to refute the views of the Dutch Contra-Remonstrants.26 On December 29, the Remonstrants presented a written reply, spelling out the conditions under which they would cooperate. Again, the state delegates directed Bogerman to ask the Remonstrants to answer categorically whether they would submit to the synod. When the Remonstrants said they would only adhere to the conditions of their written reply, the president of the state delegates put an end to the debate, and declared that a delegation would be dispatched to The Hague to report the Remonstrants’ obstinacy to the States General and to seek its direction in the matter.27 On December 31, this delegation reported to the States General, which issued a resolution on January 1, 1619. It approved the decisions of the synod and the state delegates, and commanded the Remonstrants to submit to them or else face civil and ecclesiastical censures. If they continued in the same disobedience, “their opinions on religion should be investigated, examined, and, according to God’s Word, be determined from their public writings.” Meanwhile, they must remain in Dordrecht.28 Since the Remonstrants continued their refusal to answer questions, Bogerman called together a committee of sixteen synodical delegates and six state delegates to discuss how to implement the government’s resolution. This committee thought it advisable that the Remonstrant view be extracted from their

24 Historisch Verhael van’t ghene sich toeghedraeghen heeft binnen Dordrecht, in de Jaeren 1618 ende 1619 ([Amsterdam], 1623), 54. 25 Hales, Golden Remains, 2:59–62. 26 ADSND, I:77–79; Hales, Golden Remains, 2:64–65. 27 Historisch Verhael, 116. 28 ADSND, I:85–86; Resolutiën, 3:598–99; 4:4.

139

140

Donald Sinnema

writings and be drawn up in a number of theses, and if they thought their view was not well understood, they could add a fuller explanation.29 Then the synod decided to no longer question the Remonstrants, but to examine their view from their writings. This was echoed by a resolution of the state delegates declaring that the States General’s January 1 resolution was to be put into effect. However, until the following Monday, the Remonstrants would still have the option to submit.30 On January 12, the state delegates met privately with the Remonstrants to persuade them to submit. On Monday the 14th, the state delegates reported on their meeting with the Remonstrants, stating that their efforts were in vain since the Remonstrants still clung to their conditions. They advised that they be commanded one last time to submit. Bogerman called in the Remonstrants and asked them to state categorically whether they would obey the States General and the synod. They refused to say they would submit, but instead replied with a lengthy document whose preface reaffirmed their previous conditions. Then Bogerman expelled the Remonstrants in a passionate speech, ending with: “Therefore, in the name of the state delegates and of the synod, you are dismissed. Get out!” The Remonstrants stalked out, but they were ordered by the state delegates not to leave the city.31 Though Bogerman has often been blamed for expelling the Remonstrants, the expulsion merely implemented the States General’s January 1 resolution that they be judged from their writings. Implied was that this would be done outside of their presence. Deliberations after the Remonstrants were Expelled After the procedural debates and Remonstrant expulsion, the synod’s attention turned to the actual doctrinal issues. For another three months, the synod was busy examining these issues and forming its judgment on the Five Articles of the Remonstrants. Since the Remonstrants were no longer present, the synod first discussed how best to examine and judge their views from their writings. The synod, and thereafter the state delegates, approved a decision on procedure.32 Then the state delegates sent another delegation to The Hague to report to the States General on the proceedings since early January, and to seek their approval of the synod’s actions.33 After hearing the report, on January 18, the 29 30 31 32 33

Hales, Golden Remains, 2:70. ADSND, I:106–7. Hales, Golden Remains, 2:76–77; ADSND, I:109–13. ADSND, I:115. Historisch Verhael, 156.

Church and State Relations at the Synod of Dort (1618–1619)

States General issued a resolution that approved the synod’s actions, including the Remonstrant expulsion. It charged the synod to proceed in an appropriate manner according to the January 1 resolution.34 The process that led to the drafting of the Canons of Dort included speeches by various theologians on the Five Remonstrant Articles, as well as advice or judgments presented by all nineteen of the Dutch and foreign theologians on each of the Five Articles, each of which were read and discussed in the synod. During the synod’s discussions on the Remonstrant Articles 3 and 4, concerning how God brings about conversion, a very heated exchange occurred among several synod members (especially Martinius of Bremen and Gomarus), and civil authority had to be exerted to restore some peace to the synod.35 British delegate Walter Balcanqual wrote to Ambassador Dudley Carleton, suggesting that his counsel to president Bogerman might bring much water to this argumentative fire. Ambassador Carleton wrote to Bogerman with the desired effect. In the next session, Bogerman entreated all members of the synod to abstain from all bitterness and personal opposition, and to follow meekness and brotherly kindness.36 At one point in the discussion of the advice on the Five Articles, political influence went beyond procedural matters, into doctrinal content. On the issue of the extent of the atonement, the English delegation was divided, so they sought definitive advice from England.37 After presenting their own advice, a compromise statement,38 they finally received directions from England in two letters. The first letter from Archbishop Abbot indicated that he had consulted with King James and received his approval that the English delegation should conform to the “received distinction and restriction,” that is, that Christ’s death is sufficient for all, but efficacious only for the elect. But directions from Secretary of State Robert Naunton seemed to advise a more general view of the atonement, so that little offense would be given to Lutherans. These ambiguous instructions left the English delegates with their own compromise.39 Apart from this incident, there is no evidence that the state delegates participated in discussions of the content of the Five Articles. 34 ADSND, I:117–19; Resolutiën, 4:18–19. 35 On this debate, see Donald Sinnema, “Reformed Scholasticism and the Synod of Dort (1618–19),” in John Calvin’s Institutes: His Opus Magnum, ed. B. van der Walt (Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, 1986), 483–87. 36 Hales, Golden Remains, 2:110–12, 114–15, 117. 37 Hales, Golden Remains, 2:101–2. 38 Acta, 2:78-83. On this British advice, see W. Robert Godfrey, “Tensions within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618-1619” (PhD diss., Stanford University, 1974), 177–79. 39 Milton, 212, 215.

141

142

Donald Sinnema

After the doctrinal advice from each delegation on the Five Articles was read, president Bogerman noted that the States General expected the canons to be completed by Easter, and he proposed that they be formed from a comparison of the various sets of advice. For that purpose, he informed the synod, he had drafted a set of canons, to which the synod might suggest amendments. Though supported by the Dutch delegates, this procedure immediately aroused the complaint of some foreign theologians that Bogerman intended to draw up the canons by himself and merely dictate them to the synod for its consent. To resolve the discontent, the state delegates advised that some foreign and Dutch theologians work with the president to draft the canons. The synod approved this advice and appointed a drafting committee of nine.40 For about three weeks, this committee worked on preparing the canons. After several drafts, a final version was presented to the synod, which approved the canons on all five articles. After some final changes, Bogerman noted that a good copy of the canons had been prepared for all to sign on April 23, so that it might be sent to the States General. The state delegates indicated they had appointed a delegation to deliver the canons, since the States General demanded this.41 The next day the synod approved a Sentence of the cited Remonstrants, which declared them guilty of error, scandal, and intolerable obstinacy against the resolutions of the States General and the synod, and deposed them from their ecclesiastical offices. The final words of the Sentence give a revealing glimpse into the synod’s view of the state: It further earnestly and humbly entreats the same most clement lords [the States General] that they may will and command that only this saving doctrine…may be heard publicly in their lands, that they may prevent all heresies and errors that arise, and restrain all restless and turbulent spirits, that they may continue to show themselves to be the true and kindly guardians and protectors [nutritios ac tutores] of the church, that they may be pleased to ratify the Sentence…, and render firm and perpetual the synodical decisions by their authority.42

On April 26, the state delegates delivered the canons to the States General and sought further instructions on several questions. The next day the States 40 ADSND, I:141–42; Hales, Golden Remains, 2:146–47; cf. Donald Sinnema, “The Drafting of the Canons of Dort: A Preliminary Survey of Early Drafts and Related Documents,” in Revisiting the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), ed. Aza Goudriaan & Fred van Lieburg (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 291–311. 41 Hales, Golden Remains, 2:153. 42 Acta, session 138.

Church and State Relations at the Synod of Dort (1618–1619)

responded with several resolutions: it was very happy that the synod had been unanimous in its decision on the Five Articles in dispute. The Canons ought to be publicly promulgated as quickly as possible. The Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism must be read in the full synod, and everyone must be asked whether anything in them was in conflict with the Word of God and the unity of the church. The cited Remonstrants should be told to observe the decisions and censures against them, and they should remain in Dordrecht.43 Following this mandate from the government, the synod immediately began a review of the doctrinal content of the Belgic Confession, except for the two articles on church polity where the English differed from the presbyterial system. On April 30, all foreign and Dutch members declared that the doctrine contained in the Confession agreed with Scripture and the confessions of other Reformed churches. After this approval, the Dutch delegates asked the state delegates to intercede with the States General that they might protect and establish by their authority this orthodox doctrine in the Dutch churches. The next day the state delegates declared that it was also the will of the States General that the Heidelberg Catechism be reviewed and examined in the same way.44 Following the advice of the state delegates, the synod decided to publicly promulgate the canons on May 6. On that day, the state delegates led a solemn procession to the Grote Kerk of Dordrecht where the canons and Sentence against the Remonstrants were officially read and proclaimed.45 On May 9, the foreign theologians were dismissed from the synod. The president of the state delegates heartily thanked them in the name of the States General, and asked them to go to The Hague to personally receive their letters of dismissal from the States General.46 On the 13th, while in The Hague, some of them were present to witness the beheading of Oldenbarnevelt for treason. This led someone to comment that the Canons of Dort had shot off the head of the Lord Advocate.47 Post-Acta Sessions After the foreign theologians left, the synod turned to matters relating specifically to the Dutch churches. The state delegates agreed that the Church Order of 1586 should be reviewed and examined.48 The synod approved this Church 43 44 45 46 47 48

Resolutiën, 4:108–9. ADSND, I:149–50. ADSND, I:154–155. ADSND, I:155; Acta, session 154. Historisch Verhael, 216. ADSND, I:156. The 1586 Church Order is printed in Rutgers, Acta, 487–506.

143

144

Donald Sinnema

Order in substance and decided to petition the States General to approve the Church Order and give it the force of public law, so that there might be a uniform church polity in all churches throughout the Netherlands.49 After some revisions and additions to the 1586 Church Order, the result was the Church Order of Dort, which received final approval on May 28. In the Church Order of Dort, fifteen of its eighty-six articles made reference to the civil government. Of these fifteen articles, three made changes to the 1586 Church Order and two were newly added by Dort. The rest remained unchanged from the 1586 version. The overall effect of these changes was an increased influence of the state in church affairs.50 For example, the changes in articles 4 and 5 included a new requirement that the consistory consult with local state authorities in the selection of a minister. This change was made under pressure from the state delegates at Dort.51 The 1586 version of article 4 had already required that the authorities give final approval of a minister. Of special interest is the addition of Church Order article 28 on the duty of the Christian magistrate: Since the duty of the Christian magistrate is to promote holy worship in every way, to recommend it to their subjects by their example, and to lend a helping hand to the ministers, elders, and deacons in every occurring need and to protect them by their good order, all ministers, elders, and deacons are duty bound diligently and

49 ADSND, I:156–57. The 1586 Church Order had never been approved by the States General, and some provinces followed different church orders; for example, Zeeland used the Church Order of 1591, and Groningen used the Church Order of 1594 and 1595. F. L. Rutgers, De Geldigheid van de Oude Kerkenordening der Nederlandsche Gerformeerde Kerken (Amsterdam: Ton Bolland, 1971), 32–33, 75–104. After the Synod, the States General did not honor the request to approve the Church Order of Dort. Uniformity was not attained, since Friesland, Groningen, Drenthe, and Zeeland retained their own church orders; Gelderland, Utrecht, and Overijssel adopted the Church Order of Dort, but with some changes; and Holland did not officially approve any church order. In practice, however, the differences were not great. H. H. Kuyper concludes that the Dort Church Order did not gain uniform acceptance because, from the States’ perspective, Dort did not give enough concessions to government, and, from the church’s perspective, Dort’s concessions went too far. H. H. Kuyper, De PostActa of Nahandelingen van de Nationale Synode van Dordrecht in 1618 en 1619 Gehouden (Amsterdam: Höveker & Wormser, 1899), 107–112, 310–15. 50 For the Church Order of Dort, see P. Biesterveld and H. H. Kuyper, eds., Kerkelijk Handboekje (Kampen: J. H. Bos, 1905), 225–50. 51 As later noted by Dutch delegate Gisbertus Voetius in his Politica Ecclesiatica (Amsterdam: Johannes Janssonius, 1669), II.3:559–60.

Church and State Relations at the Synod of Dort (1618–1619)

sincerely to impress upon the whole congregation the obedience, love, and respect they owe to the magistrates.…52

The synod also dealt with the sensitive right of patronage, the right of local landowners to appoint ministers. Due to complaints from various churches, some synodical delegates contended that this right should be abolished. In response, the state delegates warned that this right could not be abolished since the States General would never allow those with a valid claim to this right to be deprived of it by any church order; therefore, the synod would do well not to seek to do away with it, but rather to correct abuses if any.53 The synod declared that this right was not from God’s Word, but then tried to determine the proper limits of the right of patronage in such a way that the right was retained by patrons, while yet preventing abuses. For this purpose, the synod drew up nine articles on patronage, and decided to present them to the States General and request that they in turn recommend them to the provinces.54 Because of an increasing abuse of the Sabbath throughout the land, the synod decided to request the States General to enact new and stricter edicts to prevent such desecration.55 Because most violators were not church members and not subject to its discipline, it was assumed that the state had a primary responsibility for Sunday observance. In the final session, on May 29, one of the state delegates thanked the synod, in the name of the States General, for its faithfulness in defense of the truth of the Reformed religion. He stated that the work of the synod was very pleasing to the States General.56 The Articles to Convene the synod required that it present a report of its activities to the States General for approval. Thus, two days before it ended, the synod appointed a delegation to go to The Hague. This delegation drew up and presented to the States General a special request (libellus supplex) seeking approval of the synod’s acts and its Church Order. They requested that the States General uphold, establish, and guard the doctrine contained in the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort, and they presented fourteen other items to the States (for example, on university reform, Sunday observance, a uniform marriage ordinance, and a general ordinance for elementary schools).57 52 53 54 55 56 57

Biesterveld and Kuyper, 233. ADSND, I:157; cf. Kuyper, Post-Acta, 112–19. These articles are printed in ADSND, I:157–58. ADSND, I:166–67; cf. Kuyper, Post-Acta, 180–83. ADSND, I:185. ADSND, I:177–83; cf. Kuyper, Post-Acta, 278–81.

145

146

Donald Sinnema

Several weeks after the synod ended, the States General, by a public act of approbation approved the canons and the sentence of the synod.58 On July 5, the cited Remonstrants were summoned before the States General, and they were banished from the Dutch provinces as disturbers of peace in the land.59 The States General also authorized and oversaw the publication of the Acta of the synod. When the Acta appeared in 1620, it omitted parts and altered other parts of the original acts, largely for political reasons. Since the printed Acta was intended for an international audience, especially the foreign lands that sent theologians to the synod, the States General wanted to highlight the contributions of the foreign theologians and downplay or omit anything that reflected negatively on the Netherlands. The States General used the publication of the Acta as a way to strengthen Dutch foreign relations with other Reformed territories.60 Conclusions This overview of the story of church-state relations during the course of the Synod of Dort leads to the following conclusions: 1. The States General exercised primary control over the Synod of Dort. By specific resolutions, it convened the synod, determined the number and type of participants, determined the basic agenda and procedures, invited the foreign theologians, paid most of its expenses, controlled its publications, required accountability through reports, and finally ratified its decisions. The States General’s January 1 resolution was the basis for the expulsion of the Remonstrants from the synod, and it later approved the expulsion. The States General’s main concern was to use the synod as the primary means of quelling the religious and civil unrest that had arisen in the Netherlands because of the Arminian controversy. Its aim in using public authority in ecclesiastical matters was to guarantee peace and order. 2. The state delegates acted on behalf of the States General to implement and enforce its resolutions on the floor of the synod. They regularly corresponded with their superiors about once a week. And three times during the synod, the state delegates sent a delegation to the States General to report on the synod’s activities and to seek approval and direction on specific procedural questions. Afterwards, they also presented a report. In the name of the States General, they officially opened the synod, and advised on and sometimes determined its 58 The Act of Approbation is printed in the Acta, session 138. 59 Resolutiën, 4:171–72. 60 ADSND, I:xliv–l.

Church and State Relations at the Synod of Dort (1618–1619)

specific procedures. Sometimes they directed synodical president Bogerman to follow a specific procedure, at times they overrode his procedural decisions, and, on occasion, intervened to restore order when the proceedings became contentious. They determined which Remonstrants would be summoned before the synod, sent a letter to summon them, and repeatedly ordered them to obey when they were uncooperative. Especially during the procedural debates with the Remonstrants, the state delegates played an active role. But even after their expulsion, when the synod entered into its doctrinal discussion in the process of preparing the canons, the state delegates made key procedural decisions; for example, calling for a committee to draft the canons. In the Post-Acta sessions, the state delegates again played a significant role in decisions on church order matters. However, there is no evidence that they entered into doctrinal discussions. 3. At specific points, English political influence had a direct impact on Dort. King James I and Secretary Naunton gave input into the doctrinal question of the extent of the atonement. English Ambassador Dudley Carleton intervened with Bogerman to restore peace in a conflict between Dutch and foreign theologians. The Dutch were especially receptive to such pressure because of a concern to maintain the British as their closest ally in their conflict with Spain. 4. The Remonstrant view called for a greater level of state influence than even occurred at Dort. They believed that the state should have supreme authority over ecclesiastical affairs, even over disputable matters of faith. But they were in an awkward position when they found this state authority directed against themselves. Then they appealed for respect of the boundary as they saw it: state authority must not violate the conscience.61 5. In spite of the powerful political influence at Dort, there was a tacit recognition of a distinction between church and state. But the boundary between the respective jurisdictions of church and state overlapped somewhat. One indication of the boundary line was Bogerman’s comment requesting the state delegates’ advice on the canons’ Conclusion since this was “a matter of order, not only of doctrine.”62 At Dort, the state delegates entered into matters of order and procedure, and left the church delegates to deal with matters of doctrinal content. The difficulty was that the church also had a claim on church order. The political authorities respected that claim as long as it did not impose upon their political interests, but they assumed they had the ultimate authority in matters of church order. On many matters of procedure, the synod and its officers made decisions in consultation with the state delegates. But whenever

61 ADSND, II.2:644–50. 62 Hales, Golden Remains, 152.

147

148

Donald Sinnema

a possible conflict of jurisdiction arose in matters of church order, the synod deferred to the judgment of the state. 6. In regard to the church’s jurisdiction, the synod freely deliberated on matters of doctrinal content without interference from the Dutch civil authorities, although the civil decisions on procedure in this area certainly shaped the contours of those doctrinal discussions. An exception here was the English political influence on the issue of the extent of Christ’s atonement. In the area of church order, the synod also had considerable authority. The provincial synods selected their own delegates to the national synod. The synod chose its own officers, and the ecclesiastical president Bogerman presided over the assembly and determined many specific procedures. The synod received many gravamina (overtures) referred to it from the provincial synods, and freely decided on many of these questions. It was allowed to approve in substance and revise the 1586 Church Order that had been used in most churches, and thus the synod came up with its own Church Order of Dort, although on certain articles (e.g., on the appointment of ministers) the state delegates had decisive input. The synod challenged the sensitive issue of patronage, but in the end backed off in pursuing the matter with the state. 7. The church’s own expectations of the government, as articulated in the Belgic Confession (art. 36), the Dort Church Order, the Sentence, and its final report, invited state influence in ecclesiastical affairs. The synod expected the government to be the guardian and protector of the Dutch Reformed church, to protect the church’s worship and ministry, to prevent false worship, to see thSat the gospel was preached everywhere, to establish Reformed doctrine alone in all churches, to enforce the Church Order uniformly in all churches, and to ratify the synod’s decisions. 8. With almost no discernible complaint, the synod accepted the increased level of state interference in its ecclesiastical affairs. The reasons are quite apparent. The synod appreciated the fact that the States General was fighting a common cause with the church against the Remonstrants. The church bowed to the power of the civil authority, and it did not itself have the financial resources to hold such a national synod. Moreover, the church’s own expectation was that the state should act as guardian of the church to prevent and remove false worship and to establish Reformed doctrine and church polity in all the Dutch churches.

David B. McWilliams

9.

Sacrosancta Synodus!

Cornelius Van Til on Dort and Its Detractors

Readers of Cornelius Van Til are very aware of his thoroughgoing commitment to the theology of the Canons of Dort. In fact, from one perspective it might be argued that his entire program of theology and apologetics is but a working out of the Canons of Dort. Thus, it may be surprising that he wrote so little on the famous “five points.”1 However, a surface reading of Van Til’s writings will miss the fact that his work is saturated with the theology of Dort and brimming with the old Reformed theology. While Van Til may have written little on the canons themselves, he was epistemologically self-conscious that his calling was to expound and apply the theology of Dort in the context of modern theological thinking and strife. He was aware of the “isolation” of the Reformed perspective and battled against what he saw as the prevalent viewpoint of autonomy that was at variance with the theology of the Synod of Dort. Defense of Dort was Van Til’s duty, privilege, and joy because, he believed, Dort was simply the gospel of Jesus Christ. Van Til saw his calling to stress the antithetical positions of the old Reformed theology against what he believed was the man-centered theology of Rome, Barth, and compromising forms of evangelicalism. The Joy of the Reformed Faith Reflecting on the triumph of the Reformation in the Netherlands, Van Til could hardly contain his exuberance, observing “what joy there was in the Netherlands when the sovereign grace of God as recovered and restored by Luther, and especially as recovered and restated by Calvin, ruled in the hearts of its members.”2 By adopting the Belgic Confession and then the Heidelberg Catechism, the Reformed churches in the Netherlands could proceed in the covenantal task of training up its youth in the theology of the Reformation. Sadly, it did not take long to see that “a mixed multitude had come out of Rome.”3 1 For a multipage treatment of the Canons of Dort by Cornelius Van Til, see Christianity and Barthianism (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1977), 216–24. 2 Cornelius Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, An Appraisal of G. C. Berkouwer’s View of Dort (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969), 8. 3 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 9.

150

David B. McWilliams

It seems that affinity with the theology of Rome had not been completely rooted out; indeed, the doctrine of total depravity was too much for detractors of pure Reformed theology. The streams of water for which Calvin had longed (Psalm 42) differed from those from which the Remonstrants desired to drink. The joy of grace known, received, and taught was denied and denounced by the Arminians. The church, the Reformed argued, if she is to be faithful to her calling, must oppose error and stand for the truth of Scripture. This explains the stance of Dort contra the Remonstrants. Van Til concluded, “This is historic Protestantism, pure and simple.”4 Two Competing Systems Could not orthodox Calvinists and Arminian upstarts simply agree to co-exist within the church? The Reformed could not do so because they believed that they would have been compromising the fabric of their faith. The Calvinists of Dort and their Arminian opponents represented two antithetical and competing systems of thought. The Calvinist viewpoint, representing the very system of doctrine contained within the Holy Scriptures, contrasted with what was seen as a semi-Pelagian dependence upon autonomous reasoning. Van Til does not hesitate to speak of the Roman-Remonstrant principle “involved in the assumption of human autonomy,” which is “a comprehensive theory with respect to the nature of all reality.”5 The alliance Rome made with Greek philosophy in order to maintain their concept of “free will” influenced the Arminian system. The Reformers had broken the “fatal union between Christ and Aristotle,”6 and Dort defended their views of the sovereignty of grace against man-centered encroachments upon the fabric of Reformed theology. Indeed, the delegates at Dort believed that a consistent working out of Arminian principles would lead to the exclusion of the entire Christian system. In propounding and defending the “five points of Calvinism” against those of Arminianism, Dort was defending the Christian system as found in the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism, insisting that the Triune God must be “the self-sufficient point of reference in all that man asserts about himself or

4 Cornelius Van Til, The New Synthesis Theology of the Netherlands (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1975), 3. Here Van Til shows the harmony of the Three Forms of Unity, namely the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort. 5 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 10. 6 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 12. “The synod of Dort was concerned to defend the doctrine of the sovereign grace of God against the encroachment upon it of the free will of man. By the free will of man we mean the would-be-autonomy of fallen man,” 7.

Sacrosancta Synodus!

about his world.”7 There is no realm of pure chance; therefore “God cannot without denying himself, create a formal or abstract possibility of salvation for all men. If he did this, then no man would or could be saved.”8 The self-contained God cannot be combined with Aristotle. Dort denounced this “monstrous synthesis” and “refused to return to the flesh pots of Egypt.”9 Two Totality Views It should be apparent that Van Til sees the two competing systems, the Reformed and the Arminian, as totally antithetical. He believed that attempts to combine these viewpoints, such as the Amyraldian synthesis, led to an ascription of the ultimate determination of every man’s final destiny to man rather than to God. Here, “two totality views stand over against one another in mortal combat.”10 The combat does not end with Amyraldianism. Van Til applies the defense of Dort to more contemporary issues. Modern followers of Dort, he warns, must be alerted to the neo-orthodox synthesis. The reign of human autonomy was declared in the Confession of 1967.11 The philosophies of Kant and Aristotle are both based on the principle of human autonomy. The God of neo-orthodoxy, Van Til argues, is not that of the Bible and Reformed orthodoxy. In this approach to religion, “God and man are, together, immersed in pure contingency.”12 Hence, the arguments of recent theology against historic orthodoxy spring from a principle of “pure contingency.” An observation earlier in The Sovereignty of Grace bears upon the theme and clarifies its importance. Van Til observes: “Herein then, quite obviously, lies the relevance of Dort for today. Reformed Churches should not be surprised if the idea of human autonomy, together with its false principle of individuality, should raise its head again and again within their own confines. In fact these churches should expect the monstrosity of a theology that seeks to worship both 7 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 13. 8 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 13. 9 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 14. 10 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 19. 11 The Confession of 1967 was produced and adopted by the Presbyterian Church (USA) and was adopted with majority Presbytery approval. This confession was strongly influenced by Barthian theology. Edward Dowey of Princeton Seminary, a Barthian, chaired the committee that drafted and presented the document. The adoption of this Confession was the fruit of the long-standing dominance of liberalism among Northern Presbyterians. Both Cornelius Van Til and Edmund Clowney of Westminster Theological Seminary wrote against the Confession of 1967. 12 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 19, 22.

151

152

David B. McWilliams

God and man will take on ever increasingly subtle form. Reformed Churches must ever be ready to identify and exclude heresy from their midst.”13 Have the Reformed been alert to ideas that have come in subtle and notso-subtle forms? Have the Reformed churches been alert to the theologies of human autonomy? We will consider this question in light of two recent theologians whose work has departed from Reformed orthodoxy: Karl Barth and G. C. Berkouwer. Two Modern Detractors Karl Barth The infiltration of Barthianism into Reformed churches has been astonishing. Barth’s well known view of election was ingenious but far removed from traditional Reformed exegesis.14 Van Til notes that Barth’s view of election exhibits a “well-balanced interaction of Kant’s purely irrationalist doctrine of pure contingency and his purely rationalist doctrine of universal determinism,”15 Geschichte is Barth’s “christological” form of Kant’s noumenal realm and leads to a universalism that is deeper than that of the Remonstrants.16 On the basis of Van Til’s critique one might argue that, rather than being the Reformed theologian he claimed to be, Barth was the chief Arminian of the modern era, a Remonstrant that outdid the Remonstrants. For all of his talk of grace, it is the very particular, electing grace of God that is denied and can have no place in his system. In light of these trends, Van Til calls upon the followers of Dort “to see to it that the gospel of grace continues to be heard in its purity in our day,

13 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 14. 14 In sum, Karl Barth was critical of and dissatisfied with the orthodox view of election, claiming that the orthodox position was divorced from the person and work of Christ. On Barth’s view, God wills to be God in Christ and Christ’s human nature embraces all humanity. Therefore, all humanity is elect in Christ. But, Christ is also reprobate for all. He took the rejection of every person. This leads, logically, to universalism, but Barth would not definitely commit himself to this implication. 15 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 22. On pp. 29–32, Van Til also points to J. G. Woelderink, once a strong proponent of Reformed theology, who fell under the influence of Barth. Woelderink was very undiscerning, having “no eye for the fact that Barth’s doctrine of election is basically that of philosophical dialecticism in which a wholly other God turns wholly into the opposite of himself in his humiliation and then takes man, i.e., mankind, up into a participation in his own inner being through his exaltation. Woelderink does not see that on Barth’s view of election, there is no genuine significance found in the facts of history. There is, on Barth’s view no transition from wrath to grace in the facts of Christ’s death and resurrection in history.” 16 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 22, 23.

Sacrosancta Synodus!

in spite of the flood-tide of neo-orthodoxy now about to engulf all Protestant churches.”17 G. C. Berkouwer Barth and others, while claiming to be Reformed, have in reality placed a greater emphasis on human freedom and autonomy.18 Berkouwer, a professor of dogmatics at the Free University of Amsterdam, should have seen this readily. Over time, however, a change came about in Berkouwer’s attitude. He became more favorable toward Barth, though he had been a trenchant, Reformed critic of him.19 Moreover, he became critical of Dort over what he believed was its “causal determinism.”20 Van Til points to Berkouwer’s 1963 article, “Questions Pertaining to the Confession (Vragen Rondom de Belydenis),” in which Berkouwer is critical of the framework in which the unmerited grace of God is presented in the Canons, accusing it of having a determinist view of reality. This causal thought pattern of Dort catches us in a dilemma: how can we speak of causality in relation to sin? Berkouwer’s solution to the “problem” was to drop the causal framework of Dort and to replace it with a doxological one—as if the causal framework of Dort were not already doxological!21 He objected to drawing logical conclusions based on causal relations, logical symmetry, and parallelism based upon God’s absolute will. He rejected the idea of God’s mere good pleasure as the source for electing discrimination. In 1949, in Faith and Justification, Berkouwer had spoken of the harmony of the Three Forms of Unity and how essential their unified perspective was for the principles of sola fide and sola gratia. However, by 1955, in his book on Divine Election, he spoke of a diminished view of election in favor of his so-called doxological approach. Van Til is particularly critical of Berkouwer’s exegesis of Romans 9–11.22 Here Berkouwer wanted to speak of the “depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God” but he evacuated the text of its anchorage in the causal will of God. In Ephesians 1:4, 9–11 and 2 Timothy 1:9 the apostle teaches that election in Christ was before the foundation of the world. But, according to Berkouwer, one must drop the eternity-time antithesis which, in point of fact, once again demonstrates Berkouwer’s rejection of the causal framework. This 17 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 23. 18 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 26. 19 See Berkouwer’s doctoral thesis, Geloof en Openbaring In de Nieuwere Duitsche Theologie (Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon, 1932), especially 104ff. 20 Van Til, New Synthesis Theology, 21. 21 “Berkouwer now proposes to solve the ‘problem’ by rejecting the entire causal framework employed by Dort, and substituting for it a new one which would do justice to the doxological ‘intent’ of the canons.” Van Til, New Synthesis Theology, 63. 22 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 38–39.

153

154

David B. McWilliams

is the result of Berkouwer’s effort to answer the charge of determinism that he finds so odious “by means of an ethical teleology that is above the world of causal relations.”23 Similarly, Berkouwer left behind the absolute clarity of the Reformed confessions in his work on The Providence of God. Again, causality-determinism issues are at the core of his concerns. Berkouwer insisted that God is not capricious; rather, He is the Shepherd of Israel. As one reads Berkouwer on Dort and related issues, many questions come to mind. What does it mean that there is purpose but not a comprehensive plan? What does it mean that there is election but that all we can say about it is expressible only by way of doxology? What is the source of the language of Berkouwer that contrasts so starkly with the clear language of Dort and the Calvinistic fathers and, one may add, of earlier writings of Berkouwer himself? Van Til answers that there are two ways to think about the limitation of language. First, there is the way of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Bavinck, and Warfield. These men presupposed the fact of revelation in Christ and the absolute trustworthiness of Scripture. “Man knows nothing about anything unless he presupposes the Bible as direct revelation of the self-referential, triune God of Scripture.” This must be seen as “unproblematic” and alone can be the basis of predication and comprehensible speech.24 In contrast, there is the way of Barth and of modern theology that assumes human knowledge must be all-penetrating. Post-Kantian thought grounded in a view of contingency is, nevertheless, also grounded in a purely rationalistdeterminist principle. “Here, then, the limitation of human language signifies that the would-be-ultimate or autonomous man who aims to penetrate all reality with his logical power and thereby control it finds himself driven to the admission that the very reality he aims to know exhaustively and control absolutely, is a mirage.”25 The earlier Berkouwer communicated in the way of Calvin and Bavinck. The later Berkouwer came under the spell of Barth. While remaining critical of Barth in some ways, his criticisms over time were less trenchant and his comments more admiring. The change in Berkouwer’s language is not incidental. Van Til notes that the early Berkouwer pointed out “in magnificent fashion” how Barth removed the very foundation of grace.26 But then there was a turn and Berkouwer spoke of The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth.27 There was an accom23 24 25 26 27

Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 39. Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 45. Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 47. Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 50. G. C. Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956).

Sacrosancta Synodus!

panying change in Berkouwer’s understanding of the teleology of history.28 Fundamentally, behind all of this change, there was for Berkouwer a radical volte-face in his view of Holy Scripture.29 Scripture and the Interpretation of Dort Van Til rightly refers to the earlier Berkouwer on Scripture in contrast with his later view of the Bible. In his early work, Berkouwer spoke of the distinctive character of the Reformation doctrine of Scripture. Modern criticism of Scripture, said Berkouwer, rested upon a subjective basis. One of Karl Barth’s mentors, Wilhelm Hermann (1846–1922), had criticized orthodoxy for believing that revelation contained truth communications. Barth also had insisted that biblical criticism had its rights and that “the free grace of God cannot be communicated through a stabilized, objectivized revelation.”30 Scripture cannot be directly identified with the Word of God. Berkouwer had criticized all of this. Biblical infallibility and the content of the faith are involved in one another. The biblical teleology of history must be set squarely against the modern view as found in Barth which, according to Van Til, has lost the “perspective of the unity and harmony”31 of Scripture and is based upon the principle of autonomy. Every part of dogmatics is harmed by the modern view and a God-centered teleology evaporates. The modern view comes with an autonomously pre-constructed philosophy of history which destroys the self-attesting nature of Scripture. This was the earlier Berkouwer, the Berkouwer of Het Probleem der Schriftkritiek (1938). Van Til notes that “both Rome and Barth interpret Scripture in terms of a teleology taken from a source independent of Scripture.” In light of these aberrations, the early Berkouwer had spoken of the “isolation of the Reformed view of Scripture.”32 In opposition both to modern Protestantism and Rome, Van Til asserts that all facts of history must be interpreted by God’s Word, the Bible; therefore, there is a distinctively Reformed view of the Bible. He goes on to say that sovereign grace may only be understood in view of this distinctively Reformed view of the Bible. Without this light, all is darkness, and therefore God’s people must bear the scorn of this isolation, and the church’s strength 28 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 54. 29 Berkouwer’s decline may be read in his own words in his interesting but thoroughly depressing chronicle, A Half Century of Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), but even more clearly in his dogmatic works. 30 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 58. 31 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 58. 32 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 61.

155

156

David B. McWilliams

lies in this isolation of her confession of Scripture.33 This was the affirmation of the early Berkouwer. For the early Berkouwer, Scripture was the solution; Scripture was unproblematic. There was no competition between the divine and the human in Scripture. “There were, of course, and there always would be, many ‘difficulties’ facing the Scripture-interpreter. Yet, even so, Scripture was the lamp, the only lamp in whose light anything in any dimension of reality could be seen for what it was, and is.”34 Van Til traces the devolution of Berkouwer’s thought from 1932, when Berkouwer criticized all deviations from the Reformed faith out of his commitment to the Holy Scriptures, down to the point when he was, in his later work, influenced by the very view of Scripture that he earlier had criticized. By entertaining the neo-orthodox view of Scripture, Berkouwer endangered the Reformed confession. When Berkouwer is read, one should be aware of “two mutually destructive principles operative in his theology. There is the position of the historic Reformed Faith and there is the position that would go beyond the first position by means of a modernist existentialist pattern of thought.” In his work the first position was gradually “snowed under” as the position of Barth became more dominant.35 One memorable example of Berkouwer’s reversal was seen in a role he played at the Synod of Amsterdam in 1967, which revoked the decision of the Synod of Assen of 1926 that upheld the historicity of Genesis 2–3. In the Synod of Assen, Dr. J. G. Geelkerken sought to synthesize criticism and the Christian faith. He was, however, deposed for denying the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis. “In 1938, Berkouwer had argued that only by the ‘view of Assen’ could one have a proper view of the unity of Scripture. The Reformed teleology of history alone offered such a unity.” However, in 1967 at the General Synod of Amsterdam, the decision of Assen was revoked largely under the leadership of G. C. Berkouwer. “To all intents,” observes Van Til, “Berkouwer now does what Dr. Geelkerken and others after him did when they appealed to a ‘higher reality’ than that of ordinary history, as being that to which the physical realities of the paradise narrative pointed.”36 Now the ultimate reason for Berkouwer’s revaluation of Dort becomes clear. His devaluation of Scripture and his revaluation of Dort are correlated. He now could claim to reinterpret Dort. While continuing to claim allegiance to the absolute authority of Scripture, now reinterpreted with the influence of modern existentialism, the concept of causality became for him a problem. All must be 33 34 35 36

Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 63. Van Til, New Synthesis Theology, 73. Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 86. Van Til, New Synthesis Theology, 76.

Sacrosancta Synodus!

corrected by rejecting departures from doxology. Hence, he could praise the Confession of 1967. Van Til sums up: “We have travelled a long way from the time when neo-orthodoxy was said to be subjective, when Roman Catholicism was regarded as having a mistaken problematic and when Dort was, without qualification, said to be defending the sovereign grace of God.”37 In Berkouwer’s own account of the development of his theological views, A Half Century of Theology, he reflected on the synod that concluded that it was appropriate to object to the “determinism” of Dort. He approved of the synodical study conclusions that affirmed the intent of Dort, but objected to the “philosophical-theological concept of the all causative God.” The synod study objected to the confession of an unchangeable and eternal divine decree realized in time. The synod added that disputed passages in the canons under debate do “not speak in a correct way of the Lord God.” Indeed, B. J. Brouwer, who had brought the issue before the Synod, had asked whether the Fathers were “guilty of blasphemy.” This led to a “profound shift within the confessional life of the Reformed (Gereformeerde) churches.”38 However, what is not clear from Berkouwer’s account at this point, but certainly becomes clear from the account of his dogmatic works and the trajectory of the denomination he served as a whole, is that these questions about the canons were taking place in the context of a profound shift in the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures. As Van Til says of Barth, “the basic difference between Barth and historic orthodox theology is not merely one of exegesis: it is, rather, one of the framework of thought in terms of which exegesis is conducted.”39 Berkouwer’s revaluation of Dort was the result of his negative revaluation of the orthodox view of the Bible. That is the source of his distaste for the causative framework of Dort; this is why Dort’s perspective became for him a problem. Back to the Bible and the Reformation: Affirming and Defending Dort If Klaas Schilder could say of Barth that he had “murdered” the Reformed discipline of historia revelationis,40 one may say of Berkouwer, that he has mangled traditional Reformed dogmatics by inserting an autonomous principle into his approach to theology. By setting aside the distinctively Reformed approach to Scripture held by the fathers of Dort, it was inevitable that Berkouwer would reject Dort, at least as the fathers intended it to be understood. According to 37 38 39 40

Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 76. Berkouwer, Half Century, 104–5. Van Til, New Synthesis Theology, 9–10. Cited by Sidney Greidanus, Sola Scriptura (Toronto: Wedge Publishing, 1970), 31.

157

158

David B. McWilliams

Van Til, one should not improve upon Dort by setting a concept of doxology above the Scriptures; rather, one should derive the concept of doxology and of all things from the Scriptures. And that includes the sovereign, electing grace of God, his absolute will to show grace as he has determined, acknowledging in all reverence that, “it is grace to receive grace.”41 Van Til rejects Berkouwer’s autonomous view of doxology as a determinative principle above Scripture and a reinterpretation of the glory of God. For Van Til, Dort explains what the Bible teaches. It unfolds the system of doctrine found in Scripture on the matter of the grace of God. When Berkouwer gave the Calvin Foundation Lectures for 1952 in Grand Rapids, he continued to criticize the modern view of the Bible traceable to theologians such as Wilhelm Hermann: “Today from all quarters of the church and theology comes the declaration that the impossibility of maintaining the old doctrine of inspiration and infallibility has become more and more evident. Moreover, the particular form usually taken by the criticism of the Bible today may be summarized in the statement: There is no identity between Scripture and the Word of God.”42 On this point he was especially critical of Barth, “the headmaster of dialectical theology.”43 Stressing that this was an issue directly affecting every member of the church, Berkouwer expresses his agreement with Kuyper, Bavinck, and Warfield and, especially, to Christ himself, who said, “it is written.” “Let us not be ashamed to follow in his footsteps.”44 He wrote most critically of the principle of human autonomy in modern Protestantism and even insisted that “the originality of the Reformed faith and of Calvinism consisted in being not original in relation to the Gospel. Only in this way shall we be able to face the problems of modern Protestantism.”45 The Reformation defense of final authority was ultimately about the scepter of Christ.46 In light of the modern approach Berkouwer warned, “if holy Scripture becomes a problem in the Church of Christ, then Christ inevitably becomes a problem too.”47 In this context he called the church to faithfulness: “The Church is only attacked when her voice is clear.”48

41 J. van Genderen and W. H. Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2008), 235. 42 G. C. Berkouwer, Modern Uncertainty and Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 11. 43 Berkouwer, Modern Uncertainty, 15. 44 Berkouwer, Modern Uncertainty, 22–23. 45 Berkouwer, Modern Uncertainty, 32. 46 Berkouwer, Modern Uncertainty, 46–47. 47 Berkouwer, Modern Uncertainty, 84. 48 Berkouwer, Modern Uncertainty, 83.

Sacrosancta Synodus!

Van Til does not believe that Berkouwer arrived at his conclusions concerning Dort because of a commitment to Scripture or a new depth of exegesis. The gap between the earlier and later Berkouwer demonstrates this very point. Dort became a problem for Berkouwer because, over time, Scripture had become a problem for him. In this, conservative Reformed theologians confess with the early Berkouwer the isolation of the Reformed view of Scripture and with Van Til, the isolation of the Reformed faith—that is, the burden and responsibility of faithfulness to consistent, Reformed confession no matter the cost.49 In his essay, The Significance of Dort for Today,50 Van Til insists that the Remonstrants failed because they did not live by the Reformation principle. They did not live by Christ alone, Scripture alone, or faith alone “because like the Church of Rome the Remonstrants too loved the freedom or autonomy of man…and were blind to the fact that with their commitment to their notion of the freedom of man they were, in effect, also committing themselves to a view of reality as a whole that excludes the truth of the whole Christian scheme of things.”51 Totality thinking is at risk in the denial of the truths defended by the fathers of Dort. When Van Til says the fathers of Dort in reference to Arminianism more carefully articulated the system of doctrine that had already been set out in the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism,52 one should not for a moment forget, as Van Til would readily have acknowledged, that the Reformed Confessions sought to summarize biblical truth. The confessions of the church are the product of the Church’s serious investigation of the Word of God.53 Van Til stresses the joy of the Reformed faith in the Netherlands after the Reformation, but he also notes how quickly opposing views developed in the midst of the church. Only one hundred years after the beginning of the Reformation in Germany under Luther, and only fifty-seven years after the Belgic Confession was written (1561), Dort became necessary in 1618–1619.54 In modern times in the Netherlands there were less than fifty years from the death of Herman 49 See John R. Muether, Cornelius Van Til Reformed Apologist and Churchman (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2008), 227. 50 In Peter Y. De Jong, ed., Crisis in the Reformed Churches (Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship, 1968), 181–96. 51 Van Til in Crises in the Reformed Churches, 187. 52 Van Til, The Sovereignty of Grace, 10. 53 In “The Duty of a Pastor” in The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth), 9:459, Owen speaks of the decline of doctrine at the time of his writing. “I fear there is much loss of truth, not for want of light, knowledge and ability, but for want of love” (emphasis added). The entire section is instructive, particularly as he references Calvinistic doctrine. Truth declines and is neglected when we do not love it. 54 Homer C. Hoeksema began his massive treatment of Dort, The Voice of Our Fathers (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing, 1980) with a chapter entitled, “Swift Decline.”

159

160

David B. McWilliams

Bavinck in 1921 to the skeptic H.M. Kuitert55 who succeeded G. C. Berkouwer at the Free University of Amsterdam.56 In this anniversary year of Dort, many agree with Cornelius Van Til and will not waver in their commitment to the Reformed faith as summarized in the Reformed confessions and defended by the fathers at Dort. Rather, as one reads the Canons of Dort, the clarity of the Reformed fathers is evident. In that way, many continue to look to Dort with admiration, appreciation, and instruction, as they exclaim, “Oh, Sacred Synod!”57

55 On Kuitert see especially, Cornelius Van Til, The New Hermeneutic (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974), 109–78. See also the very important article of William Young, “Modern Relativism and the Authority of Scripture,” in Reformed Thought Selected Writings of William Young (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2011), 295–308. In this analysis of Kuitert’s The Necessity of Faith, Young makes use of Van Til but is not dependent on him. He also asks the essential question, “How could apostasy sweep in like a flood in the university founded by Abraham Kuyper?” He finds the answer in Kuyper’s Hyper-Covenantism associated with Kuyper’s concept of presumptive regeneration. Kuitert and others failed so see that the gospel is for the individual sinner. In this connection, Young quotes Wilhelm Geesink: “And experience also teaches that where one generation departs from the Confession and is indifferent to orthodoxy, the sons break with the Scripture, and the grandsons with Christ. Also in this is displayed the visiting of the sins of the fathers upon the children.” For more background, see in the same collection of Young’s writings, “Historic Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism,” 25–58. 56 It is also interesting to note that the leaven of Barthianism was at work very soon after Kuyper and Bavinck. One stark example is Dr. J. J. Buskes, who “developed into a Barthian through and through…a staunch opponent of all that is Reformed. Yet Buskes was among the students who served as pall-bearers at the funerals of Kuyper and Bavinck.” Rudolf Van Reest, Schilder’s Struggle for the Unity of the Church (Neerlandia, Alberta: Inheritance Publications, 1990), 37. 57 Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 1:515: “Meyer, a delegate of Basle, whenever afterwards he spoke of this Synod, uncovered his head and exclaimed, ‘Sacrosancta Synodus!’”

Experiential Perspectives

Charles Telfer

10.

“The Holy Exercises of Piety” in the Canons of Dort and in Campegius Vitringa (1659–1722) as a Representative of the Nadere Reformatie

The Reformation of the sixteenth century was a revival movement that impacted not only the church’s doctrine, but its organization, its approach to worship, and its practice of the Christian life. The Reformed heritage, which can be considered an ongoing renewal movement, has impacted congregations and individual Christians for the last five hundred years and extended its influence to far-flung places from California to Korea and around the globe. This brief contribution will highlight how a deep concern for practical piety, and piety of a particular stamp, typified not only the men who developed the Canons of Dort (CD), but the entire Further Reformation movement (the Nadere Reformatie) in the Netherlands throughout the seventeenth and into the eighteenth century. Moreover, it will look in a focused way at the views of Campegius Vitringa (1659–1722) as a later representative of that tradition. Background Though the Reformation was not sustained by a single individual, John Calvin was particularly influential. In the preface to his Institutes of the Christian Religion, he told Francis I, King of France, that his concern was “solely to transmit certain rudiments [fundamental principles] by which those who are touched with any zeal for religion might be shaped to true godliness [pietas].”1 Piety is a broad topic, but for Calvin and all in the Reformed tradition after him, there are certain “holy exercises” which express believers’ devotion to God and strengthen their faith and their experience of grace. Hearing the Word of God preached, praying to God, and singing his praises were among the “exercises of piety” for Calvin and all his heirs.2 Puritanism in late sixteenth and seventeenth-century England both saw itself as an extension of the Reformation and was passionately concerned with the 1 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1:9. 2 Joel Beeke, “Calvin on Piety,” in Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, Puritan Reformed Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), 16.

164

Charles Telfer

personal godliness of Christians. It is less widely appreciated that there was a corresponding movement in the Netherlands during this same period with close ties to English Puritanism, the Nadere Reformatie, the Dutch Further Reformation or Second Reformation. Not only were hundreds of English books on theological and practical topics translated into Dutch, but in the seventeenth century, “Tens of thousands of Anglo-Scottish believers of Puritan persuasion lived in the Netherlands in the seventeenth century” and “represented about forty congregations and 350 ministers.”3 One Englishman who had a particularly profound influence in the Netherlands was William Ames (1576–1633). His writings against Arminianism were influential at the Synod of Dort along with his presence there as chief theological advisor and secretary to Johannes Bogerman, the presiding officer. Ames was appointed professor of theology at the University of Franeker in Friesland, and for eleven years the “Learned Doctor Ames” sought to “Puritanize” the entire university. He had a strong influence on both Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676) and Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) who played important roles in the development of seventeenth-century theology and church practice in the Low Countries. Ames’s magnum opus, The Marrow of Theology, defines theology as the “doctrine of living to God.” Joel Beeke summarizes: “The theology of this book is all about practical Christianity—a Christianity of the whole man, not just the intellect, will, or affections. It demonstrates Ames’s passion that thought and life should represent a single system of practical, vital Christianity.”4 The search for a seamless unity between doctrinal reflection and personal practice was typical of Reformation thinkers in the Netherlands. The Dutch Reformed Translation Society makes this statement: To further their program of active personal, spiritual, ecclesiastical, and social reformation, the writers of the Nadere Reformatie [Dutch Further Reformation] produced some of the finest, most profound literature in the Protestant tradition. Furthermore, because the Dutch Reformed piety of the seventeenth century grew out of Reformed orthodoxy and included among its founders and exponents several erudite orthodox theologians—such as Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus van Mastricht, and Johannes Hoornbeek—the works of the Nadere Reformatie do not give evidence of the kind of antagonism between theology and piety that belonged to the Pietist phase of German Lutheranism. Rather, the proponents of the Nadere Reformatie offered

3 Joel Beeke and Randall Pederson, Meet the Puritans (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 743. 4 Joel Beeke, “The Learned Dr. William Ames and the Marrow of Theology,” in Joel R. Beeke, Puritan Reformed Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), 131–32.

“The Holy Exercises of Piety” in the Canons of Dort and in Campegius Vitringa (1659–1722)

a balance of doctrine and piety as well as theology and life that has seldom been equaled in church history.5

One of the most influential ministers in the reformational renewal of the Dutch churches was Willem Teellinck (1579–1629). He wrote over 120 treatises seeking to promote reform in various circles of life. He was Zeeland’s delegate to the Estates General petitioning for a national synod to resolve the problems connected to Arminianism. Teellinck’s best-known work, The True Path of Godliness, explores what true godliness is, how believers should conduct themselves in practicing godliness, and why the exercise of true godliness is of utmost importance.6 With God’s blessing, Teellinck’s concerns for reform came to fruition not only in the Synod of Dort but also through the continued Nadere Reformatie for the rest of the century. Next, we should trace the concern for the practice of piety in the ongoing history of the Dutch church below. But, having seen some of the background, I will examine the teaching and influence of the Canons of Dort—most particularly on Campegius Vitringa—on the topic of the holy exercises of piety. The Synod and the Exercises of Piety If the Canons of Dort are correct in their view of the hardness of the human heart, we should not be surprised that Dort itself has been vigorously attacked for many reasons. Many who see themselves as “captains of their soul” hate the teaching that human beings are prone to evil, conceived in sin, morally enslaved, and unable to reform the depravity of their nature (III/IV, 3). Those who imagine themselves as the “masters of their fate” kick against the biblical presentation that God chooses to save human beings purely because of his own sovereign grace—that God sent Christ to be his chosen people’s mediator and that it is only by the power of his Holy Spirit and by means of the Word that any person is regenerated, believes in Christ, is justified, sanctified, and ultimately brought into glory and full communion with God (CD I, 7). Critics of Dort often saw it as overly academic, despite the fact that the synod deliberately chose to express itself in accessible, pastoral language, not in the technical terms of scholastic disputation. They have also complained that the canons’ emphasis on free and unconditional grace undermines the motivation for Christians to pursue holy living and encourages people to indulge 5 Dutch Reformed Translation Society, in Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 740. 6 Joel Beeke, “Willem Teellinck and The Path of True Godliness,” in Beeke, Puritan Reformed Spirituality, 323.

165

166

Charles Telfer

wholeheartedly in sin. The Conclusion of the canons addresses head-on a number of the judgments leveled by Arminians and others against the Reformed doctrine of grace—that it “leads off the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and the devil… that it renders men carnally secure… that they may safely perpetrate every species of the most atrocious crimes.” However, a careful reading of the canons will immediately put to rest the idea that they are cold, philosophical excurses on speculative matters. The concern for the spiritual health of everyday Christians and for practical piety is clear from first to last. The “Introduction” sets out the reasons for the synod as follows: “So for the integrity of the truth of salvation, the tranquility of consciences, and the peace of well-being of the Dutch church, the synod decided to promulgate the following judgement.”7 The pastoral concern for the consciences of the people is a major reason for the work of this church assembly and permeates all statements of the Synod of Dort. Clearly, the canons emphasized the sovereignty of God in electing and the power of his Holy Spirit in regenerating and sanctifying the people of God. But, unlike many approaches to spiritual life, the synod refused to divide the Spirit from the word of God. This means that the canons presented a particularly high and robust vision of the power of the Scriptures and of the ministry. The Spirit used the word of God as a means for transforming people (III/IV, 11). The first head of doctrine repeatedly underlined the importance of preaching and the means of grace. Article 3 on the preaching of the gospel affirms: “And that men may be brought to believe, God mercifully sends the messengers of these most joyful tidings to whom He will and at what time He pleases; by whose ministry men are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified.” Here the authors cited Rom 10:14–15 in support of their high view of the ministry. Article 5 of the second head emphasized the mandate to proclaim the gospel to all and teaches: Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.

The church’s missionary work at home and abroad was crucial. Dort was no call for passivity. Article 16 underlined the importance of the diligent use of 7 All italics in quotations of the canons in this article indicate my emphasis.

“The Holy Exercises of Piety” in the Canons of Dort and in Campegius Vitringa (1659–1722)

means in order for Christians to grow and to become confident that they are saved: Those in whom a living faith in Christ, an assured confidence of soul, peace of conscience, an earnest endeavor after filial obedience, a glorying in God through Christ, is not as yet strongly felt, and who nevertheless make use of the means which God has appointed for working these graces in us, ought not to be alarmed at the mention of reprobation, nor to rank themselves among the reprobate, but diligently to persevere in the use of means, and with ardent desires devoutly and humbly to wait for a season of richer grace.

Article 17 then underlined God’s use of means in regeneration, and is key to understanding how the synod viewed the exercises of piety, human acts used by God: As the almighty operation of God whereby he brings fourth and supports this our natural life does not exclude but requires the use of means by which God, of His infinite mercy and goodness, has chosen to exert His influence, so also the aforementioned supernatural operation of God by which we are regenerated in no wise excludes or subverts the use of the gospel, which the most-wise God has ordained to be the seed of regeneration and food of the soul. Wherefore, as the apostles and the teachers who succeeded them piously instructed the people concerning this grace of God, to His glory and to the abasement of all pride, and in the meantime, however, neglected not to keep them, by the holy admonitions of the gospel, under the influence of the word, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical discipline; so even now it should be far from those who give or receive instruction in the church to presume to test God by separating what he of His good pleasure has most intimately joined together. For grace is conferred by means of admonitions; and the more readily we perform our duty, the more clearly this favor of God, working in us, usually manifests itself, and the more directly His work is advanced; to whom alone all the glory, both for the means and for their saving fruit and efficacy, is forever due. Amen.

Throughout, the canons made this inseparable connection between God’s sovereign, unconditional, and invisible grace and the visible and audible human means that he used to save and preserve his chosen ones. The fifth head of doctrine explored this connection in various ways as it considered “The Perseverance of the Saints.” Article 14 underlined again how God uses means to enable his people to persevere:

167

168

Charles Telfer

And as it has pleased God, by the preaching of the gospel, to begin this work of grace in us, so he preserves, continues, and perfects it by the hearing and reading of his word, by meditations thereon, and by the exhortations, threatenings, and promises thereof, and by the use of the sacraments.

Such human activities or “holy exercises of piety,” as common and everyday as they may seem, are precisely the channels by which the canons argued God begins and sustains the spiritual life of his own. Such too is the case with the discipline of prayer. As Article 4 explored the very real danger of believers’ falling into serious sin, it emphasized the importance of Christians to be “constant in watching and prayer, that they may not be led into temptation. When these are neglected, they are…liable to be drawn into great and heinous sins.” God’s sovereignty makes use of one’s prayer life, therefore the canons argued that human responsibility in this daily practice was crucial to spiritual health. And when one did sin, the canons called the believer to an even more zealous devotion to the spiritual practices. Article 1 notes how the regenerate were not entirely free from sin and Article 2 explained how to respond: Hence spring forth the daily sins of infirmity, and blemishes cleave even to the best works of the saints. These are to them a perpetual reason to humiliate themselves before God and to flee for refuge to Christ crucified; to mortify the flesh more and more by the spirit of prayer and by holy exercises of piety; and to press forward to the goal of perfection, until at length, delivered from this body of death, they shall reign with the Lamb of God in heaven.

Opposed to any version of quietism or a passive view of the Christian life, the canons called believers to a vigorous and constant use of “the holy exercises of piety.” Enabling Christians to enjoy the assurance of God’s love and the security of their salvation was an important pastoral concern of the canons. The fifth head of doctrine (rej. 6) opposed the idea “that the doctrine of the certainty of perseverance and of salvation from its own character and nature is a cause of indolence and is injurious to godliness, good morals, prayers, and other holy exercises, but that on the contrary it is praiseworthy to doubt.” The synod countered: Refutation: For these show that they do not know the power of divine grace and the working of the indwelling Holy Spirit. And they contradict the apostle John, who teaches the opposite with express words in his first epistle: “Beloved, we are God’s

“The Holy Exercises of Piety” in the Canons of Dort and in Campegius Vitringa (1659–1722)

children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure” (1 John 3:2–3). Furthermore, these are contradicted by the example of the saints, both of the Old and the New Testament, who though they were assured of their perseverance and salvation, were nevertheless constant in prayers and other exercises of godliness.

Those who have the assured hope that they possess God’s grace are more, not less, devoted to the holy exercises of piety. Believers should know this by experience: when confidence in God’s grace fills the Christian, one responds in grateful devotion and activity. Article 12 put it this way: This certainty of perseverance, is so far from exciting in believers a spirit of pride, or of rendering them carnally secure, that on the contrary it is the real source of humility, filial reverence, true piety, patience in every tribulation, fervent prayers, constancy in suffering, and in confessing the truth, and of solid rejoicing in God; so that the consideration of this benefit should serve as an incentive to the serious and constant practice of gratitude and good works, as appears from the testimonies of Scripture and the examples of the saints.

According to Dort, as one becomes more assured of God’s unmerited grace, it serves as a stimulant to a greater devotion to godliness and the exercises that accompany a pious life. Such a view of spirituality emerges from a Scripturefocused approach to piety. As article 10 expressed it, the Christian’s assurance of God’s grace “is not produced by any particular revelation contrary to or independent of the Word of God, but springs from faith in God’s promises, which He has most abundantly revealed in His Word for our comfort.” These Reformed leaders did not separate the Spirit and the word, grace and the means of grace, God’s preservation and human perseverance, or divine assurance and human gratitude expressed in a devotion to the holy exercises of piety. Joel Beeke makes a fair generalization: The problem with most spirituality today is that it is not closely moored in Scripture and too often degenerates into unbiblical mysticism. In contrast, Reformed Christianity has followed a path of its own, largely determined by its concern to test all things by Scripture and to develop a spiritual life shaped by Scripture’s teachings and directives. Reformed spirituality is the outworking of the conviction that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). In dependence upon the

169

170

Charles Telfer

Holy Spirit, it aims to achieve what John Murray called “intelligent piety,” wedding scriptural knowledge and heartfelt piety. Of the preachers, scholars, and writers who fostered this kind of biblical spirituality, none have excelled the Puritans of England and their contemporaries in Scotland and the Netherlands. Their legacy excels in basing all spirituality, experience, and affections on the Bible.8

The Legacy of Dort—Campegius Vitringa and the Holy Exercises of Piety The view of the means of grace presented in the Canons of Dort continued to hold a high place in the lives and teaching of the most important Dutch divines throughout the course of the seventeenth century. The experiential Calvinist and covenant theologian Johannes Cocceius (d. 1669), though born in Germany, played a major role in the Nadere Reformatie. And Gisbertus Voetius (d. 1676) “represents the mature fruit of the Dutch Further Reformation and ranks among the most influential Dutch Reformed theologians of all time.”9 Though largely unknown and ignored by English-speaking scholarship, Voetius was an in-house name to students of Dutch Post-Reformation orthodoxy. Voetius wedded a Reformed scholastic methodology to heartfelt piety. Standing at the pinnacle of scholasticism immediately prior to its disintegration, Voetius illustrated how orthodox Reformed theologians used scholasticism as a methodology which, contrary to the oft-repeated caricature, promoted neither a departure from Calvin’s theology nor a dead orthodoxy. Voetius served as proof that, historically speaking, the expression “dead orthodoxy” is a misnomer. Orthodox Reformed scholastics like Voetius have typically resonated with a vital warmth and heartfelt piety.10 Two of Voetius’s most appreciated works were his Meditation on the True Practice of Godliness or Good Works, published in 1628, and ‘Ascetica,’ or the Exercises of Godliness in 1654. He influenced thousands and turned the University of Utrecht into the “Academia Voetiana.” As Beeke explains: He was instrumental in training hundreds of ministers who, following in his footsteps, strove to maintain a harmonious union between scholasticism and godliness. His teaching also attracted many Presbyterian Scots and nonconformist English students. To many of his students, his theology became a program. His ideals were formulated into what became known as (contrary to his wishes) as “the Voetians” or 8 Beeke, Puritan Reformed Spirituality, vii–viii. 9 Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 799. 10 Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 799.

“The Holy Exercises of Piety” in the Canons of Dort and in Campegius Vitringa (1659–1722)

“the Voetian party.” With their powerful combination of orthodox doctrine and vital piety, the Voetians were far more successful at reaching the common people than were the Cocceians.11

One of Voetius’s most important students was Herman Witsius (1636–1708) who sought to “merge Reformed, doctrinal knowledge with heartfelt practical piety.”12 During his time as a local pastor, “all sorts of devotional practices blossomed, piety grew, and the unity of God’s people was enhanced.”13 He taught theology at Franeker, Utrecht, and finally Leiden. When first installed at Franeker, his inaugural address was entitled, On the Character of a True Theologian and “stressed the difference between a theologian who knows his subject only scholastically and a theologian who knows his subject experientially.”14 In this same line of Nadere Reformatie theologians, Witsius’s most influential disciple was Campegius Vitringa Sr. (1659–1722). Vitringa has been subject to the same kind of accusations of spiritual sterility, doctrinal narrowness, and unbiblical theological speculation that have been leveled against many of the orthodox Calvinistic writers of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.15 Richard Muller introduces Vitringa’s most important writing on spirituality and notes that more recently: Studies of the era (particularly of the Reformed orthodox) have shown not only significant evidence of piety or spirituality but also direct connections between the production of technical and even polemical expositions of doctrine and the creation of nontechnical, but confessionally sound works of spiritual edification. The writings of Campegius Vitringa the Elder provide an important window into the spirituality, doctrine, and exegesis of the era of orthodoxy and exemplify the interrelationships of these disciplines. Vitringa’s work on Christian spirituality, originally published under the title Essay on Practical Theology, or a Treatise on the Spiritual Life…taken by itself, is a finely organized presentation of an older Reformed spir-

11 12 13 14

Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 806. Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 333. Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 333. Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 334. On the Character of a True Theologian was edited by Ligon Duncan and reprinted by Reformed Academic Press in 1994. 15 For example, Heel criticizes Vitringa quite unfairly at points and speaks about “the steel harness of the clerical orthodoxy of his time.” Willem Frederik Caspar Johannes van Heel, “Campegius Vitringa Sr. als Godgeleerde beschouwd” (PhD diss., Utrecht, 1865), 44.

171

172

Charles Telfer

ituality that bears the marks of a believer and scholar steeped both in the text of Scripture and a foundational Reformed theology.16

Vitringa was passionately concerned with both practical godliness and cutting-edge academic work. According to his foremost eighteenth-century biographer, he was “of those who, through their imitation-worthy example, bring to naught the common (but baseless and harmful) prejudice that thorough scholarship and a genuine fear of God cannot be brought together properly or usefully.”17 His magnum opus, the 1710 Commentarius in librum prophetiarum Jesaiae, sealed his place as the foremost commentator on Isaiah for much of the eighteenth century.18 Vitringa was concerned with the promotion of piety in the world and this two-volume technical commentary on Isaiah had a devotional tone to it. For example, when speaking of the worship of the nations foretold in Isaiah 66:23 Vitringa noted, “This signifies the acknowledgement of the true God in his Son with the profoundest reverence for him and his majesty, and with the solemn assertion and profession of fear and worship of him, both in public worship and in every exercise of religion.”19 Vitringa stood at the center of the Nadere Reformatie tradition. He lived and wrote during what we now call the latter phase of high Protestant orthodoxy.20 He managed to integrate the best of the scholarly and devotional emphases of a range of theologians working in the Low Countries. As A. F. Büsching writes, In his day Dutch theologians were divided into the Cocceians and the Voetians. But Vitringa managed to steer clear of any party spirit. Cocceius was his friend as was Voetius, but his dearest friend was truth. As you can see from the famous preface to the Isaiah commentary, he was able to make use of as well as disagree with Cocceius.

16 Richard Muller, “Foreword” in Campegius Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, translated and edited by Charles K. Telfer (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2018), xi–xii. 17 Anton Friederich Büsching, “Fortsetzung,” in Auslegung der Weissagung Jesaiae (Halle: Johann Gottlob Bierwirth, 1749), 2:12–13. This is the German translation of Vitringa’s famous Isaiah commentary. 18 According to Brevard Childs, the Isaiah commentary “dominated the field for a century.” Childs, “Hermeneutical Reflections on Campegius Vitringa, Eighteenth-Century Interpreter of Isaiah,” in In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour of Ronald E. Clements (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 89. 19 Vitringa, Commentarius in librum prophetiarum Jesaiae, Editio Nova. (Basel: Joannes Rodolphi im Hoff, 1732), 2:954. 20 Regarding periodization (and another mention of Vitringa’s prominence), cf. Richard A. Muller, Post–Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520–1725, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 1:32.

“The Holy Exercises of Piety” in the Canons of Dort and in Campegius Vitringa (1659–1722)

Through his love of truth, Vitringa was able to keep a good conscience and to please God and those quiet minds who love the peace of Zion.21

Vitringa’s The Spiritual Life was immensely popular and quickly translated from the original Latin into Dutch, German, French, and Magyar (Hungarian).22 Due to Vitringa’s great influence, as well as the way in which he represented the center and late flowering of the Nadere Reformatie tradition in the Netherlands, and the fact that almost none of his work has been translated into English, Vitringa’s views on the “holy exercises of piety,” which are fully in keeping with the point of view set forth in the Canons of Dort, are worth a careful examination. As with Dort, Vitringa explored the work of the grace of God in the hearts of men. All acts of true piety on the part of human beings are ultimately the fruit of God’s mercy through Christ. “In the Word of God, the obedience of the Son is set forth as the cause of all the spiritual benefits that we receive.”23 Spiritual life is a state of activity, and it is produced in a sinner through regeneration as the Spirit uses the word of grace to communicate life to a person.24 The Spirit 21 Büsching, “The Life and Work of Campegius Vitringa Sr. (1659–1722),” in Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, xxxviii. 22 Vitringa biographer and German translator A. F. Büsching notes, “Another demonstration of Vitringa’s ability is his beautiful book The Spiritual Life. He was able to motivate people for the Christian life and to stir them up to pursue a Christian lifestyle very affectively and with proper biblical support. For this reason, he was also a pleasant and edifying preacher. From the pulpit as well as from the lectern he addressed audiences of many eager listeners.” Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, xxxix. I remark, “The project of bringing this book into English was conceived while I was a doctoral student. As I was slogging through a translation of Vitringa’s rather technical Isaiah commentary, I read The Spiritual Life and was enraptured by its lofty vision. Some sections of this book were so uplifting, even breathtaking, that I resolved to try to bring something of its beauty into English. [Vitringa’s French translator] De Limiers spoke well of ‘the piety and the unction that one can feel so well in the original.’ … Chapter 12 on the means of grace, chapter 15 on God’s chastening us, and, of course, chapter 18 about our life with Christ in eternity are particularly helpful and have some glorious insights. Profiting from the perspective of our forebears is excellent for our spiritual health, and though parts of old books may seem prosaic, those who press on surely will be inspired by many arresting and delightful passages.” Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, xvii–xviii. Cf. Charles Telfer, “Campegius Vitringa (1659–1722), Exemplary Exegete and Theologian of the Spiritual Life in the Reformed Tradition,” Hapshin Theological Review 6 (2017): 67–90. 23 Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 19. “It is clear that the blood of the Son of God, since it is that of an expiatory, substitute victim, is the water and the fountain of life: in short, the cause of the justification and sanctification of the elect.” Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 22–23. 24 “First, as natural generation is an action in which one living being produces another, so it is with the generation of God. Life is communicated from one subject to another. God is a Spirit whose life is the exemplar of all true spiritual life. By His power, God engenders

173

174

Charles Telfer

produces new spiritual dispositions in a person, the desire to seek and serve God, and new capacities for virtuous conduct.25 No less than Dort, Vitringa saw a person’s spiritual transformation as stemming from sovereign, irresistible grace: [A person] may be quite close to being a Christian and yet never reach a true state of grace. But grace never fails in those whom God has destined for salvation. At the point of time when this great work is decreed by order of divine providence to take place, it comes to its completion and perfection. Convicting grace is converted into regenerating grace. At that time God makes a striking impression on the mind, illuminating, overpowering, and influencing the affections in such a powerful way that the shadows are pushed back and the scales fall from the eyes (Acts 9:18). Carnal lust is restrained and conquered, and the entire man is kindled and set ablaze by the love of God (Deut. 30:6). The person devotes himself wholly to God in Christ Jesus with all his affections (Acts 15:26), and out of perfect love joined to sincere gratitude he wills that everything that he is and has might be sacred to God and Christ (Luke 7:47), offering himself with all his faculties as a sacrifice to God (Rom. 12:1). The following subjects now present themselves to his mind with great distinctness: the ugliness and deformity of sin; the shame of his present state; the vanity, uncertainty, and inconstancy of worldly things; the bitter fruit of the sins for which he repents; the attractiveness of communion with God; the beauty of the ways of God in saving a miserable sinner through Christ Jesus His Son; the excellence of His person; and finally the delightful and ravishing effects of communion with God in Christ. Now the man clearly sees. Now he is so affected with the sight of these things that

in a person those foundational principles and abilities that give rise to the spiritual life. He illumines the intellect, graciously revealing Himself inside the mind of a person; He purifies the judgment, giving it an aptitude for discerning spiritual things; He stirs up in a person a thirst for communion with Christ Jesus and a living faith in Him, pure affections, and the sincere desire to acquire every virtue. We have seen above that these make up the groundwork and foundations for a person’s spiritual life.… The following is a description of what may be called the life of God in man. When a person has been delivered from the state of ignorance, error, and vanity and has been made a participant of the divine light and glory, he endeavors to do the following: to contemplate and understand God in all the glory and perfection of His nature, to judge God and His ways rightly, to love God and the truth, to long for communion with God, to seek the glory of God with all his mind, to give himself over affectionately to the practice of every virtue, to separate himself from carnal and perishable things, to join himself to God as closely as possible, and to receive with joy and consolation the influence of His light and grace.” Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 28. 25 Cf. Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, xii.

“The Holy Exercises of Piety” in the Canons of Dort and in Campegius Vitringa (1659–1722)

he immediately breaks every bond with which had been bound, renounces all dealings with sin, and, prostrating himself with the deepest humility before the throne of God, he commits himself to His grace. In this way the Lord Jesus takes possession of the entire house of the soul with all its rooms, living there, reigning there, and sharing a life with the man (John 14:23), dwelling and feasting with him (Rev. 3:20). So it is that God comes to a soul; so it is that He reveals Himself and joins Himself to a person by grace. Such is the pattern that Augustine left us in his book Confessions regarding his own conversion and regeneration.26

Vitringa had a very high view of the power of the word of God in human hearts. In contrast to the “word of the law” which exposes and condemns sinners, the “gospel” is transformative: But the word of the gospel explains to a man the riches of divine love and grace. This word of grace offers the remission of sins and eternal life to the one who believes in Christ Jesus the true Mediator. It gently invites a man to communion with God. This good word, a word of consolation, a living word, can restore the life of a soul and, as it were, bring it back from the dead. This word is like a light accompanied by warmth, as is the case with the sun that illumines, warms, and—penetrating into the depths of the earth—produces the movement of life in everything that receives the influence of its rays. So it is when one reads this word of the gospel attentively or hears it preached and expounded faithfully by ministers. When animated by the Holy Spirit, the gospel lifts the conscience, illumines the mind, purifies the judgment, instructs a person in the true faith, sanctifies him, purifies and consoles him. It leads him to contemplate the glory of God as it shines forth in Christ Jesus. It produces the stirrings of true life in the heart of a dead man, a motion of sincere spiritual love and of a holy longing for communion with God, by which the believing soul, separating itself from all other things, is intimately united to its Creator.

26 Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 38. Reacting against quietist views popular in his day, Vitringa repeatedly underlines the active nature of the spiritual life produced by God in the human heart. The quotation cited above continues as follows: “[In adults] the operation of divine grace and the emergence of the new man never take place except through vigor and great exertion. There is no place for inaction or slackness. The man convinced of the ugliness of sin rejects it with horror and casts it away like clothing stained with menstrual blood. ‘Get away from me!’ he says (Isa. 30:22). Effectively called to Christ and persuaded about the necessity of having communion with God through Him, he does not merely go, he runs (see Song 1:4; Ps. 119:32; Isa. 40:31). Blazing and ardent, ‘fervent in spirit’ (Rom. 12:11), he does nothing with sloth or indifference.” Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 39.

175

176

Charles Telfer

And so it happens that a man who had never until that moment been conscious of any other movement within himself (other than those that spring from the fountain of natural or corrupt desires) begins to experience within himself a principle of new life, a principle that is the effect of a heavenly work, the kindling of an eternal and inextinguishable fire that excites his soul to noble acts in keeping with his new nature. He feels in his heart a fountain of living water that springs up continually and never runs dry. The man affected in such a way by this principle of new vivacity considers having this life to be infinitely more to his advantage than all the things worldly people esteem so greatly. He considers himself happy with this one possession; this one pearl is all his riches, and he derives from it a continual source of consolation. For he is certain that in having the initial enjoyment, he possesses eternal life in its entirety. In being blessed with the first-fruits, he is confident of the entire harvest of future glory (see Ps. 19:8–11; 119:103–17).27

With such a vision of the gospel, it is no surprise that Vitringa, like Dort, had a high view of preaching and of public worship. It was particularly in public worship that “the Lord Christ has promised to those who gather in His name not only an abundant outpouring of His grace but His very presence as well.”28 This is why, he argued, that preaching and public worship transform a person and orient them for pious living: In public worship the principal means for confirming the spiritual life and promoting holiness are administered. For this reason, (among other similarly beneficial purposes) public worship was instituted, ordained, and commended to the saints (Heb. 10:25). It is here that ministers and pastors, who are (if they carry out their duty properly) the overseers and healers of souls and the “stewards of the mysteries of God,” distribute the bread of spiritual life in accordance with the needs and troubles of every person. Here in public worship they teach truth and refute error, they convict and reprove, they appeal and warn, and they console. From time to time, if 27 Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 30–31. “The gospel is the only means of illuminating, rectifying, and exhilarating the mind of man that can restore him to his right senses. Only this seed can produce in a person the movements, affections, and exercises of the true spiritual life. For the word of grace is a word of life, not death. Narrowly considered, the word of the law is a word of death and execution. ‘For the letter [that is the law] kills but the Spirit makes alive,’ as the apostle says (2 Cor. 3:6). The word of the law condemns sinful man; it terrifies him; it threatens him with the divine wrath and curse; it strikes him down and lays him out; it afflicts him with pain and sadness. The law does not lead a man to God; rather, it leads him away from God. This is why the word of the law cannot by its nature be a means of regeneration.” Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 30. 28 Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 131.

“The Holy Exercises of Piety” in the Canons of Dort and in Campegius Vitringa (1659–1722)

the topic and occasion demands, they thunder and strike like lightning. But weak, heavy-laden, and afflicted souls they nourish, encourage, lift up, and support with comfort and consolation. Those who are presumptuous and proud they expose and restrain. They stimulate those who are inactive. They strike fear into those who tenaciously indulge themselves in vice and depravity. They push forward those who are sluggish and lazy. The thoughts of the heart and the inner workings of the conscience they expose to view the deep workings of vanity and malice and the corruptions that lay hidden in the inmost chambers of the heart. They call the minds of their listeners to the tribunal of God and of their own conscience. To the unresponsive they expose their own deformed condition and everything that they are trying to hide from themselves, even if they hate listening. But pastors lead those who are convicted and broken by the message, submissive and reverent toward God, and concerned about their duty to the fountains of gospel consolation, the springs of living water from which they can drink abundantly. Here in public worship the pious soul, having come to know God as He is revealed in Christ Jesus, celebrates His benefits with purity of affection and sings His praises with sincerity and gusto. Here the believer brings his prayers, thanksgivings, and supplications to the very throne of God. He presents himself before the Lord in the holy of holies, pouring out all the concerns of his soul before Him as to a loving father, with filial confidence and childlike trust. Here the sacraments (marks and symbols of grace that remind us of the benefits that we have received from the Lord and of our duties to Him) are set forth publicly and distributed to believers as confirmatory signs in order to strengthen their faith and hope. They were instituted to fortify our trust and assurance. And last of all, if the sacred acts of public worship are carried out with appropriate order, reverence, care, and the mutual love that binds the brethren together, then each believer furnishes an example that benefits his neighbor, and each one enjoys communion with the other. Each one acts to arouse and enliven others, and this greatly fosters the godliness and sanctification of each participant. For we humans are more quickened and stimulated by example than by instructions and warnings.29

Vitringa assigned particular value to what he called “holy singing.” He explained, “I think that holy singing, more than almost any other spiritual exercise, served to mold the mind and impress it with good affections, emotions, and intentions, which very much supported the quest for sanctification, purity, and virtue.”30 Vitringa sketched the extensive labors of Reformed Christians 29 Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 131–32. 30 Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 126.

177

178

Charles Telfer

in France, the Low Countries, and elsewhere to promote the practice of holy singing, and noted: All I have described required an unbelievable amount of effort, but it was the undertaking of people who had stepped forth into the light after having been sunk in darkness. And they delighted in this type of holy singing as something that would contribute to the progress of the gospel and the benefit of others. The indifference of their posterity and the coldness of Christians today is deserving of censure: such singing is almost only heard in the public assemblies. If in treating this subject of holy singing I have gone beyond the proper limits of this short book, it is to stir up in lukewarm souls and frigid minds a pious and sincere desire to follow the outstanding example of our ancestors to whose prudence, godliness, and zeal (having been ignited by God) we owe the precious benefit of the Reformation—that is, purified religion.31

Vitringa treated the practice of prayer as a part both of public and of private worship. “The holy exercise of prayer makes up the first part of rational religion (which is to say spiritual religion), and it is not only recommended but indeed commanded throughout Scripture as the means of perfecting and completing our sanctification.”32 He emphasized beautifully the importance and power of prayer: As is proper, I put prayer in the first place among the means of promoting sanctification: that most holy exercise by which the godly soul joins itself to God, ascends to God as by stairs to heaven itself, and (as from a flowing watercourse) draws for itself divine grace. Surely there is no more glorious exercise for a man (who is mortal, ashes and dust, a sinner from the womb) than to dare appear before the very throne of God on the basis of the divine grace that is offered to him in Christ Jesus, by the merit of His obedience and the support of His intercession. In prayer the believer both brings his requests to God with confidence as to a good father and joins in the choirs of the angels to celebrate the mighty works and the benefits that he has received from God’s divine majesty. I understand prayer in a broad way. It refers to everything we communicate to God. This includes our petitions for the good things necessary for this life and for piety, our appeals for God to avert the threat of bad things, our intercessions for others, our thanksgivings for the benefits

31 Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 130. 32 Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 115.

“The Holy Exercises of Piety” in the Canons of Dort and in Campegius Vitringa (1659–1722)

He has bestowed, and our glorifying and celebrating the divine excellencies, perfections, grandeur, and majesty.33

Like Dort and most other Nadere Reformatie writers, Vitringa underlined the word of God (particularly in preaching and public worship), prayer, the sacraments, and mutual accountability in the visible church (i.e., discipline) as means of grace. But he did not seem particularly concerned with precisely limiting the definition of “the holy exercises of piety.” As a Protestant, he denied that celibacy, voluntary poverty, and blind obedience to superiors (i.e., in a monastery setting) are “distinctive means for obtaining the very highest state of spiritual perfection.”34 By contrast, he argued that a biblical view understands that: Every act of virtue, every duty carried out in accordance with the law of Christ, becomes a means of obtaining a higher degree of perfection and sanctification. Just as those who cling to and live in vice do not stay at the same level but proceed “into worse ungodliness” (2 Tim. 2:16), so also those who run the race of virtue are always making progress. And from one act of virtue they find persuasion, help, and encouragement for another one.35

33 Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 114–15. Vitringa waxed lyrical in his discussion of the importance of praying ardently and without stopping: “This kind of importunity, incessantly continuing in a petition, might seem inappropriate with fellow humans. If a person has been denied two or three times but continues to insist and repeat his request, he might be considered shameless, lacking in honor and civility. But the reception hall of the court of heaven does not take it so. It is proper not only to pray but to plead, to demand, to request insistently and continually, even as a beggar does. This is not displeasing but pleasing to God. When God puts off responding to His people’s first and second requests, He is provoking them to more ardent prayers and deeper desires. He tests and uncovers the internal affections of their minds and persuades them of their great need and misery. And He confirms and strengthens their trust in His grace, goodness, and paternal care for His own. The remarkable example of the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:22–28 underlines this. She turned her initial sharp rejection by Christ to her own advantage. The holy man prayed in this attitude: ‘O Lord, God of my salvation, I cry to you by day, and my prayer is before you at night’ (Ps. 88:1); ‘Continue tenaciously in prayer; be attentive in it as you give thanks’ (Col. 4:2); As Peter was in prison, ‘prayer was made for him by the church intensely and tenaciously to God’ (Acts 12:5); Cornelius was ‘a devout man...who assiduously interceded with God in supplications’ (Acts 10:3). If you seek divine grace in this way, if you implore His strength, and if you insistently press your case while prostrate before His throne, you will triumph. Through prayer you will receive a hearing. You will overcome, and by assaulting and wrestling after the example of your father Jacob, you will conquer the unconquerable One.” Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 119. 34 Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 141. 35 Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 141.

179

180

Charles Telfer

This broad view enabled Vitringa to speak in glowing terms about the benefits of cultivating spiritual fellowship with like-minded friends.36 Self-examination, especially at the end of the day, is “beneficial for progress in virtue” and “for advancing in sanctification.”37 Solitude, when properly carried out, was a means of promoting sanctification, and Vitringa would “say a few words in support of retreating from society from time to time for holy exercises.”38 Even the practice of fasting could be a beneficial spiritual practice.39 Space limitations make it difficult to survey the way in which Vitringa sees self-denial, cross-bearing (endurance), and following Christ Jesus to be basic parts of the active Christian life.40 It is also not possible to sketch what he 36 “Beloved, if you find a friend who is good, sincere, faithful, honest, gentle, humble, godly, similar to you in temperament and spirit, sharing with you in Christ’s grace, seeking the same goals as you, committed to sharing the same responsibilities, and oriented to the same pursuits as you are, then foster this friendship. Cherish this friend and hold close to him (though, of course, sensibly and in accordance with your circumstances). Attach yourself to that friend with such constancy and propriety that he may never have cause to blame you or doubt your faithfulness. In sum, treat him as Jonathan did David. This will profit you greatly as you run your race in the Lord.… How great is the fruit of fellowship and familiarity with friends who are striving for the same goal as we are! This is why the godly man says, ‘I am a partner with all who reverence you and keep your precepts’ (Ps. 119:63; cf. Ps. 122:1).” Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 135–36. 37 Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 136. 38 Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 137. 39 “It is true that neither consuming nor abstaining from food or drink commends us to God (1 Cor. 8:8). And since fasting should be a spiritual exercise where a person humbles his mind before God and sincerely seeks cleansing from his faults, when a person engages in fasting with detestable hypocrisy, it provokes God’s indignation greatly (Isa. 58:3–14). But if you engage in fasting with the proper attitude and goal, at the proper times and places, without seeking witnesses, and as a support in carrying out your private or public religious duties, then there is much in the practice that is praiseworthy. Our fasting is an outward demonstration of the deep respect that we have for God and the practices by which we honor Him. Fasting helps restrain and check the lust of the flesh. It helps compose the soul, curb our sinful passions, and settle our twisted emotions. It woos our mind away from fleshly things, draws us closer to God, and makes us more prepared for contemplating spiritual things as they really are. It helps make us more open to receiving the enlightening influence of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Separated from the flesh, our frame of mind comes closer to God. Such a state of soul is extremely profitable as we come and pour out our prayers before God. This is why the ancients rightly connected the practice of fasting to praying.” Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 139. 40 Note Vitringa’s concern in the following quote for the seamless unity between doctrinal reflection and personal practice that above we saw to be an emphasis of the Nadere Reformatie as a whole: “For the sake of space, I will not enter into a detailed discussion of these important matters. On these subjects you should read the teachings of Jesus Christ in the gospels, all of Paul’s epistles as well as the epistles to the Hebrews and 1 Peter. In these you will find your relational duties accurately described, a perfect outline of practical theology and doctrine. In the letters the apostle Paul wrote for the common instruction of the churches, he was always

“The Holy Exercises of Piety” in the Canons of Dort and in Campegius Vitringa (1659–1722)

saw as the major challenges to spiritual living. But before concluding, I should emphasize again how the larger Reformed tradition and Vitringa as its heir, rejected quietism and called for an active engagement in the holy exercises of piety. For those who wish to grow into Christian maturity he advised, Experience teaches that those who attain to adulthood in the communion of God in Christ must in their early days put forth a zealous effort to carry out the duties of their state scrupulously and carefully. They should give themselves to prayer and to the reading of and meditation on the Word of God attentively and intentionally. They should frequent sacred assemblies gladly and find consolation for their souls and find as much pleasure and benefit in every holy exercise as a starving man finds in food or a thirsty person in drink. After a proper and serious preparation beforehand, they should approach with great reverence the most holy mystery of our religion set before the eyes of believers in the Lord’s Supper. They should anxiously seek out the company of the saints, that they might edify and console one another. They must not neglect practicing the duty of charity toward the poor or of benevolence and love toward all. They should continually seek to demonstrate a humble attitude of mind that is devoted to Christ Jesus in everything.41

For Vitringa and the entire Nadere Reformatie, the most powerful means of grace and the most central of holy exercises was engaging the word of God (in public preaching and at home): Reading the Word of God is a means for advancing in sanctification and holiness and is a practice established by God Himself. It affects one’s entire spiritual life. Experience itself teaches that everyone who gives himself to meditating on the Word of God comes away from the exercise a better person—more knowledgeable, humbler, more holy, better prepared for the conduct of life. For the presence of God, which he hears speaking in the Word, affects him and inspires him with reverence for God. The glory of God shines out to him. As a person reads and meditates on Scripture, the Spirit of God who inspired it influences him. Through the Word, the Spirit sanctifies such a person, strengthens him, comforts him, confirms his faith and hope, represses his vain lusts, and quiets his turbulent and wandering feelings. The Spirit stirs up every good affection in that person and furnishes him with the prudence

careful to join practice to theory, practical duties to theological doctrine” (emphasis added). Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 64. 41 Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 80–81 (emphasis added).

181

182

Charles Telfer

and self-control necessary to face the attacks of Satan and the temptations of the world. The excellent Psalm 119 celebrates this universal experience of the saints.42

There is an eschatological dimension to Vitringa’s view of the spiritual life. He believed that to possess and be possessed by God is one’s highest privilege. And even in glory God’s people will have unmitigated and uninterrupted fellowship with him in “holy activity and exercise.”43 As the believer is actively involved in the holy exercises of piety, at times God will give them a taste of the glory to come. With these words, Vitringa concluded his discussion of The Spiritual Life: If the reader of these few pages would understand more, let him use his own capacity to perceive the things to come that are imperfectly chalked out here, and he will be able to explain them better. For the present, however, it is sufficient to understand that an abundant recompense is coming, a “great reward” (Ps. 19:11). There are tremendous good things stored up for those who fear God (Ps. 31:19). The magnitude of these benefits cannot be grasped by the faculties of the human mind in this terrestrial economy. But it often happens that out of the great kindness He has toward those whom He so tenderly loves, God gives a foretaste of the delights of this future life. When they are involved in holy exercises, at times He may fill them with great clarity and light and give them an extremely vivid sense of His grace. With gentle comfort He may soothe and console them in the sorrows and adversities of this 42 Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 121. “All those gifted with healthy judgment and persuaded of the divine origin and authority of the Word have recognized it to be a treasure whose value is impossible to conceive. Though God had instructed the human race about the way to live through reason, man willingly plunged himself into the most profound darkness from which no one could ever expect escape. How good of God to make the light of His Word shine into the world and under the new economy to disseminate it to all nations, so that now no mortal should lack a guiding light as he makes his way through the gloomy darkness of this life. Assuredly the Word of God is the light of God (Ps. 119:105). He who reads it hears God speaking to him: he converses with God and with Christ Jesus Himself. He recognizes in the voice and writings of the prophets and apostles the very voice of the Holy Spirit. This Word is the fountain of life for him. It is medicine for his mind. It is food for his spirit. He finds here the delights of the celestial paradise.” Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 120–21. For Vitringa, reading Scripture is also a “remedy for spiritual illness” and “a special balm which by itself may heal a soul that is languishing, sick, and near death.” Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 92. 43 “A third characteristic of [the status of the believers the world to come] is the holy activity and exercise (completely in keeping with their perfect and glorious state) that will occupy the blessed in glory. As I have explained above in the discussion of eternal life, they will exert themselves without intermission and with a sense of continuous delight and pleasure.” Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 212. For Vitringa, our engagement in holy exercises will continue, under changed forms, into glory.

“The Holy Exercises of Piety” in the Canons of Dort and in Campegius Vitringa (1659–1722)

life. He may fill His people with unspeakable joy and lighten their way with serenity, contentment, all kinds of high thoughts, and a peace that passes understanding. He may stir them up to a most ardent love and desire for Himself. Seeming to have been loosed from their bodies and ravished in the contemplation of the wonders of His being and the marvels of His ways, God may saturate them with such a certain persuasion and overwhelming confidence in their future happiness, and the good things that they have by faith they seem to possess now as a present reality. These are delights that can only be learned in the school of the saints. Such pleasures are bread for God’s elect, the white stone with a new name written on it that no one knows except the one who receives it, the supper of God where Christ feasts with those worthy to live in His house, the Spirit’s testimony with our spirit (Rom. 8:16), the affirmation and strengthening of the faith and hope of those who are mature believers by the grace of God. And they in grateful response devote themselves completely to Him…. Therefore, O man of God, you who are called in the hope of such good things, set forth toward the goal appointed for you! In this way you will find rest and you will rise to enjoy your portion on the last day (Dan. 12:13). Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!44

Conclusion Christians across the centuries have found such delights to be a profound stimulus to actively pursuing the means of grace and giving themselves to the holy exercises of piety. One can see that a deep concern for practical godliness and a particular, word-centered, active piety was an outstanding feature of the Canons of Dort, of the entire Further Reformation movement (the Nadere Reformatie), and of Vitringa as one of its outstanding representatives in early eighteenth-century Netherlands.

44 Vitringa, The Spiritual Life, 215.

183

Joel R. Beeke

11.

The Canons of Dort’s Promotion of Reformed Pastoral, Experiential Preaching

Though there has been a revival of interest in “five points of Calvinism” in recent years, the Canons of Dort from which they sprang are often neglected. When people do think of the Canons of Dort today, it is likely that they associate the canons primarily with a system of predestinarian theology.1 It may surprise many to learn that the opening articles of the canons quote John 3:16, and then say, “That men may be brought to believe, God mercifully sends the messengers of these most joyful tidings to whom He will and at what time He pleaseth; by whose ministry men are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified.”2 From their beginning, the Canons of Dort aim to promote the preaching of the gospel. Peter De Jong observes that it is “a glaring misrepresentation” to limit the synod’s work to theology: “preaching in the churches constituted one of its chief concerns.”3 Even those people familiar with the pastoral emphasis of the canons might be surprised to learn that they promote experiential preaching. By experiential preaching we mean the proclamation of the whole counsel of God’s Word to the believer’s heart, so as to instruct him from the Word how a Christian ought to live and what he ought to experience (Rom. 8:1–17), as well as how he falls short of that ideal and struggles with indwelling sin, experiencing a holy war within himself (7:14–25), while offering an optimistic hope of the victory God promises in Jesus Christ (8:28–39). Experiential preaching is biblical and doctrinal in its presentation of divine truth, but oriented to the practical Christian life, beginning with the motions of the soul toward God. Matthew Barrett says,

1 Portions of this chapter are adapted and used with permission from Joel R. Beeke, Reformed Preaching: Proclaiming God’s Word from the Heart of the Preacher to the Heart of His People (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2018), 256–64. Thanks to Paul Smalley for his assistance on parts of this chapter. 2 Canons of Dort, first head, articles 2–3, in Doctrinal Standards, Liturgy, and Church Order, ed. Joel R. Beeke (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2003), 97. 3 Peter Y. De Jong, “Preaching and the Synod of Dort,” in Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dort, 1618–1619, ed. Peter Y. De Jong (Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship, 1968), 120–21.

186

Joel R. Beeke

“Dort is an excellent example of how Calvinism does not hinder but actually inspires sincere, genuine piety in the believer.”4 The Synod of Dort and Preaching the Word While addressing Arminianism, the synod also dealt with a number of other questions raised by the churches regarding preaching. First, the synod reaffirmed the custom of preaching on the Heidelberg Catechism. Catechism preaching had been introduced in 1566 by Pieter Gabriel and made mandatory for the churches in 1586. The catechism itself had been apportioned for weekly exposition when it was divided into fifty-two Lord’s Days. However, congregational neglect and pastoral overwork threatened the survival of this practice. The synod stated, “The Ministers everywhere shall briefly explain on Sunday, ordinarily in the afternoon sermon, the sum of Christian doctrine comprehended in the Catechism which at present is accepted in the Netherland Churches, so that it may be completed every year in accordance with the division of the Catechism itself made for that purpose.”5 The synod did add that the sermons should be “brief and easy to comprehend for the sake of the uneducated.”6 So the Canons of Dort express a concern that the people receive instruction in the doctrinal standards of the church through regular catechism preaching. The Heidelberg Catechism expresses Reformed experiential Christianity with great warmth. Second, the Synod of Dort also commended the preaching of predestination. The divines rejected the idea that predestination is an irrelevant or abstract notion, or, worse, a harmful idea best left alone. It was preached by the Old Testament prophets, the New Testament apostles, and Christ himself. Therefore, the canons say, the doctrine of election should be preached, “provided it be done with reverence, in the spirit of discretion and piety, for the glory of God’s most holy Name, and for enlivening and comforting His people, without vainly attempting to investigate the secret ways of the Most High” (I, 14). The divines of Dort here remind us that ministers not only preach to the hearts and lives of the people; preachers must preach the truth to their own hearts and lives first. Furthermore, the doctrines of election and reprobation do not encourage sin, fatalism, or despair, but instead they can and should be preached “to the glory of the divine Name, to holiness of life, and to the consolation of afflicted souls,” as 4 Matthew Barrett, The Grace of Godliness: An Introduction to Doctrine and Piety in the Canons of Dort (Kitchener, Ont.: Joshua Press, 2013), 127. 5 Church Order of the Synod of Dort, Art. 68, in Doctrinal Standards, 187. 6 Quoted in De Jong, “Preaching and the Synod of Dort,” 121.

The Canons of Dort’s Promotion of Reformed Pastoral, Experiential Preaching

the canons say in their concluding remarks. “Though men of perverse, impure and unstable minds” distort the doctrine of election “to their own destruction, yet to holy and pious souls [it] affords unspeakable consolation” (I, 6). Thus, the divines at Dort insisted that God included the doctrine of predestination in his Word for his glory and our good. Robert Godfrey writes, “Predestination is not revealed to encourage strange abstract questions but to promote the adoration of the glories of God. It is also revealed for the comfort of God’s people.”7 Cornelis Venema says, “God has been pleased, for the edification and salvation of His people, to reveal the truth concerning His electing grace in Christ in the Scriptures. It would be unfaithfulness and ingratitude on our part, not to preach what the Word teaches on this subject.” Yet he cautions, “The preaching of election must be carefully disciplined by the Word of God, declaring neither more nor less than God has been pleased to reveal to us in the Word.”8 Third, the synod declared that the doctrines of grace have massive implications for preaching. The canons present a biblical perspective on God’s saving grace that shapes why and how we preach the Word. In what follows, this chapter offers some of the canons’ lessons for preaching, with a focus on the pastoral, experiential aspect of heralding God’s Word. Preaching as a Means of Sovereign Grace The Canons of Dort teach that all have sinned and deserve God’s condemnation, but his heart overflowed with mercy and he sent forth his Son to save sinners (I, 1–2). God sent out ministers of the word “to whom He will and at what times He pleaseth” to preach the gospel of Christ crucified and call men to repentance and faith (I, 3). So from their opening, the Canons of Dort lift up preaching as the means through which God’s mercy in Christ meets the needs of lost men. Cornelius Pronk says, “When we talk about election we should start with the fact that Christ is preached, and is freely offered to lost sinners.”9 God’s elect are not distinguished by any superiority rooted in their nature or nurture, but rather by the effect of the Word upon them. God has decreed to give his elect to Christ and “effectually to call and draw them to His communion by His Word and Spirit” (I, 7). So the Spirit-filled preaching of the Bible plays 7 W. Robert Godfrey, Saving the Reformation: The Pastoral Theology of the Canons of Dort (Orlando, Fla.: Reformation Trust, 2019), 96. 8 Cornelis P. Venema, But for the Grace of God: An Exposition of the Canons of Dort (Grandville, Mich.: Reformed Fellowship, 2011), 32–33. 9 Cornelis Pronk, Expository Sermons on the Canons of Dort (St. Thomas, Ont.: Free Reformed Publications, 1999), 19.

187

188

Joel R. Beeke

a central role in effectual calling unto Christ. It also is a means by which God preserves his grace in believers so that they persevere (V, 14). When they fall into sin, he, “by His Word and Spirit, certainly and effectually renews them to repentance” (V, 7). The pairing of Word and Spirit reminds ministers that preaching requires experiential application through the Holy Spirit to be effective in evangelism of the unbeliever and for the edification of the believer. We have seen already that God is sovereign over the sending of a preacher to a particular people (I, 3). The Synod of Dort emphatically denied that God has ever sent the ministry of the Word to a people because they were “better and worthier than another to whom the gospel was not communicated.” On the contrary, it is “merely and solely the good pleasure of God” that rules over the sending of the preacher to a particular people (I, rej. 9).10 Therefore, when a preacher goes forth to serve a community, he may trust that he is there by God’s sovereign will. Unless God sends a preacher of the gospel, there is no hope of salvation. Neither “the light of nature” nor the moral “law” can save a sinner. God saves the sinner “by the operation of the Holy Spirit through the word or ministry of reconciliation” (III/IV, 6). This last phrase is a reference to evangelistic preaching as described in 2 Corinthians 5:18–21: And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

In the midst of a confessional statement about sovereign, predestining grace, one is reminded that preachers are to plead with sinners to come experientially to Christ. Godfrey notes that this teaching of the canons is very much in accord with the Heidelberg Catechism (Q. 65): “Since then we are made partakers of Christ and all His benefits by faith only, whence doth this faith proceed? From the Holy Ghost, who works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the gospel, and confirms it by the use of the sacraments.”11 Godfrey comments, “The church and its ministry are central to regeneration.”12 While we can never tie the Spirit’s 10 The notation I, rej. 9 means head I, rejection 9. 11 Doctrinal Standards, 53. 12 Godfrey, Saving the Reformation, 132.

The Canons of Dort’s Promotion of Reformed Pastoral, Experiential Preaching

work to human ministry—as if men could control God—we must never sever the Spirit’s saving work from the preaching of the Word. When God sends a preacher, it is an immense grace to the people who hear him. They should not try to pry into God’s reasons for passing by others and giving the gospel to them. Neither should they think they were “superior” or “making a better use of the light of nature.” Rather, they must acknowledge God’s mercies to them “with humble and grateful hearts” (III/IV, 7). Preaching and the Warnings of God’s Word The Canons of Dort preface the opening statement of the gospel with the bad news of sin: “As all men have sinned in Adam, lie under the curse, and are deserving of eternal death, God would have done no injustice by leaving them all to perish, and delivering them over to condemnation on account of sin,” citing Romans 3:19, 23; 6:23 (I, 1). Though God created man in flawless righteousness, man fell away from God into “blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity and perverseness of judgment, became wicked, rebellious, and obdurate in heart and will, and impure in his affections” (III, 1). The theology of the canons encourages the preaching of the doctrines of sin and divine judgment to awaken sinners experientially to their need of Christ. The canons also emphasize human responsibility and accountability for a refusal to trust in Christ. “The wrath of God abideth upon those who believe not this gospel” (I, 4). Furthermore, “the cause or guilt of this unbelief, as well as of other sins, is no wise in God, but in man himself ” (I, 5). The doctrine of election gives no justification for “carnal security” among “those who refuse to walk in the ways of the elect” (I, 13). If they excuse themselves by saying they cannot help themselves, the canons teach preachers to tell them “they are neither able nor willing to return to God,” and their abuse and corruption of the natural light that they have shows them to be “inexcusable before God” (III/IV, 3–4). The doctrine of reprobation does not excuse sin or blame it on God, but “declares Him to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous Judge” (I, 15). “God is not only supremely merciful, but also supremely just. And His justice requires… that our sins committed against His infinite majesty should be punished, not only with temporal, but with eternal punishment” (II, 1). This theology promotes preaching that presses upon people the great wickedness of refusing to repent and believe and the eternal consequences that follow, while stripping them of excuses falsely based on God’s sovereignty. Such warning sermons are often frightening, but, if preached in a manner consistent with the theology of Dort, will be set in the context of the gospel of God’s saving

189

190

Joel R. Beeke

grace. The doctrine of divine justice sets the stage for Christ’s atoning work, for He made “satisfaction to divine justice on our behalf ” (II, 2). Preaching and the Sincere Offer of Christ to All Men God’s election of particular individuals remains a secret until it bears fruit in conversion. Therefore, the preacher must proclaim the gospel to all who hear him. The canons read, “Moreover, the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously [without discrimination] and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel” (II, 5). The phrase “promiscuously and without distinction” is a pleonasm, meaning the gospel is to be proclaimed to any person and to all alike, and applies to both the promise and the command of the gospel. It implies that the minister has no business trying to guess which unconverted people may or may not be elect, but must press upon all his hearers their duty to turn from sin and trust in Christ. Furthermore, we must not miss the missionary implications of “published to all nations” (II, 5). Anthony Hoekema called this article of the canons “a kind of Magna Carta for missions,” noting, “It is not merely said that the gospel message may be brought to all, but that it ought to be so brought…. The Church must do all in its power to see that the message is brought to all.”13 Of course, the church’s success in spreading the gospel is limited by God’s “good pleasure,” as the Canons of Dort acknowledge (II, 5). But it has a calling and commission to reach the world. The canons make this evangelistic and missionary statement while teaching the doctrine of definite redemption. Some people think that preaching the gospel requires us to tell people “Christ died for you. Believe that and you are saved.” On this basis, they accuse those who believe that Christ redeemed his elect of not being able to preach the gospel freely to all men. But here the canons teach both the redemption of particular people and the gospel invitation for all to come to Christ. As Pronk points out, the apostles “did not call sinners to believe that Christ died for them, but they called sinners to believe in Christ.”14 Acts 16:31 says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” 13 Anthony Hoekema, “The Missionary Focus of the Canons of Dort,” Calvin Theological Journal 7, no. 2 (November 1972): 214–15. The original article reads “Magna Charta,” an alternative spelling of the Latin “carta.” 14 Pronk, Expository Sermons on the Canons of Dort, 128.

The Canons of Dort’s Promotion of Reformed Pastoral, Experiential Preaching

Nowhere in the New Testament do we see Christ or his disciples telling people that “Christ died for you”—meaning each and every person. Rather, biblical evangelism declares that Christ died for sinners and promises to save all who believe in him. The gospel call expresses God’s sincere call for all sinners to come to Christ. The canons say: As many as are called by the gospel, are unfeignedly called. For God hath most earnestly and truly shown in his Word, what will be acceptable to Him, namely, that those who are called should comply with the invitation. He, moreover, seriously promises eternal life, and rest to as many as shall come to Him, and believe on Him. (III/IV, 8)

Christ is truly “offered” in the gospel, though many men who are “called by the ministry of the Word” nevertheless reject him (III/IV, 9). Thus, the preacher proclaims a sincere call from God that all men should repent, offering Christ to them as the only Savior of sinners. Some Reformed Christians mistakenly reject the doctrine of a free offer of the gospel. They dispute our understanding of the Canons of Dort, and even its translation. For example, Homer Hoeksema objected to what he calls the “corruption of the call of the gospel into a general, well-meant offer of salvation.”15 Instead, he insisted that the gospel call is “a demand, or a command.”16 Indeed, it is a command “to repent and believe” (II, 5). As Scripture says, God “commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30). But the canons also rightly say that Christ is “offered” through the gospel (III/IV, 9). Hoeksema said that the word translated “offered” (Latin offero)17 does not denote “a well-meant invitation,” but means “presented or set forth.”18 But offer often means to put something before someone for his acceptance or rejection, as in offering food or a gift. Well-meant is another way of saying “sincere” or “unfeigned”—which is how the canons describe the gospel call. And an invitation is a call to come. The Bible represents the gospel as an invitation to the banquet of God (Prov. 9:1–5; Luke 14:16–24). God personally, earnestly, sincerely, and seriously calls 15 Homer C. Hoeksema, The Voice of Our Fathers: An Exposition of the Canons of Dordrecht (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1980), 489. 16 Hoeksema, Voice of Our Fathers, 492. 17 For the Latin text of Canons of Dort III/IV, 8, see Acta Synodi Nationalis, In nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi, Autoritate Illustr. et Praepotentum DD. Ordinum Generalium Foederati Belgii Provinciarum, Dordrechti Habitae Anno MDCXVIII et MDCXIX (Lugdvni Batavorum: Isaaci Elzeviri, 1620), 257. 18 Hoeksema, Voice of Our Fathers, 499–500.

191

192

Joel R. Beeke

all men to come unto him and find salvation by trusting in his Son. The words unfeignedly, earnestly, and seriously all translate the same Latin word (serio). Hoeksema especially objects to earnestly.19 However, Latin lexicons allow for either seriously or earnestly as correct translations.20 He is right, however, in asserting that the translation “comply with the invitation” is a loose rendering of the Latin (ad se veniant), better translated “come unto Him.” Faithfulness to the Bible at this point, as at many points, brings the charge of contradiction or incoherence. Arminians charge the Reformed with undermining evangelism. On the other side, even after his revision of the translation, Hoeksema complains that the divines at Dort “were not at their best” and suffered “a lack of clarity” in these articles.21 On the contrary, they were very clear. They grasped two biblical truths and refused to let either of them go: God has elected some to salvation and God sincerely calls all who hear the gospel. De Jong writes, “Indeed, the Reformed did not attempt to resolve what seemed also to them quite incomprehensible. But they emphasized man’s responsibility as taught in Scripture fully as much as God’s sovereignty.”22 This has huge implications for preaching, for ministers speak as God’s representatives. A Reformed preacher of predestination should offer Christ to everyone who hears the gospel, giving heartfelt calls to come to Christ and be saved. G. H. Kersten writes: “The Word must be preached to all without exception; the Gospel must be offered to converted and unconverted. Some object to this as if it would make the offer of grace too general. But the Lord Jesus has commanded it. ‘Many are called, but few are chosen’ (Matt. 22:14).”23 Peter Feenstra says, “The Canons of Dort stress that God is serious when He calls us to come to Him. The Lord has no pleasure in the death of any one but that the sinner should turn from his way and live (Ezekiel 18:23, 30–32).”24 Though God, for the larger purpose of his glory, has decreed that only his elect will turn to him, it remains true that God does not delight in destruction in itself, but has pleasure in the repentance of sinners no matter who they may be. If we deny this, we run the risk of denying the very goodness of God.

19 Hoeksema, The Voice of Our Fathers, 485–86. 20 Ethan Allen Andrews, A Copious and Critical Latin-English Lexicon (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1851), 1401; Leo F. Stelten, Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin: With an Appendix of Latin Expressions Defined and Clarified (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995), 245. 21 Hoeksema, Voice of Our Fathers, 487. 22 De Jong, “Preaching and the Synod of Dort,” 130. 23 G. H. Kersten, Reformed Dogmatics: A Systematic Treatment of Reformed Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Netherlands Reformed Book and Publishing Committee, 1980), 369. 24 P. G. Feenstra, Unspeakable Comfort: A Commentary on the Canons of Dort (Winnipeg, Manitoba: Premier Printing, 1997), 115.

The Canons of Dort’s Promotion of Reformed Pastoral, Experiential Preaching

However, this is not preaching like an Arminian. The canons say that God does not merely offer saving grace for men to take by “their own free will, which joins itself to the grace that is offered” to make it effective (II, rej. 6). God does not offer “faith” to sinners, to be embraced or rejected. Instead, he offers Christ to all, commands faith as the duty of all, and works faith in some—he “produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also” (III/IV, 14). The rest reject Christ as a choice determined by their own corrupt wills. Man is to be blamed for damnation; God is to be praised for salvation. God “calls men by the gospel,” and it is not his fault that men “refuse to come and be converted.” On the contrary, they themselves are culpable for rejecting the Word and for refusing to allow it to make “a lasting impression on their heart” (III/IV, 9). When men do repent and believe, it is not because of “the proper exercise of free will,” but the gift of the electing God who “rescues them from the power of darkness, and translates them into the kingdom of His own Son” (III/IV, 10). The Arminians embraced the biblical doctrine of the gospel call to all men, but then, through twisted human reasoning, misapplied it to deny the equally biblical doctrines of man’s total inability and God’s sovereignty. The canons embrace both biblical teachings: the free offer of the gospel and the effectual calling of God upon helpless sinners. Venema says: It is interesting to note that the language of the Canons, describing the serious and genuine call that God issues through the gospel to all, is virtually identical with that employed by the Remonstrants in their fourth article. However the Reformed authors of the Canons refused to follow the “logic” of the Remonstrants or Arminians, who drew the conclusion that all sinners must then be able of themselves to comply with the gospel’s demands.25

Preaching as the Channel of Supernatural Power The doctrines of total human depravity and omnipotent divine grace imply that effective preaching is not merely an exercise in human communication and persuasion. Effective preaching is a supernatural event. God not only causes the gospel to be externally preached to them and powerfully illuminates their minds by His Holy Spirit…but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit, pervades the inmost recesses of the man; He opens the closed, and softens the 25 Venema, But for the Grace of God, 66n1.

193

194

Joel R. Beeke

hardened heart ... and infuses new qualities into the will, which though heretofore dead, He quickens. (III/IV, 11)

God does not merely offer options to the will “by the external preaching of the gospel, by moral suasion [persuasion],” which one may accept or reject. He works a supernatural miracle in the heart so that without fail “man himself is rightly said to believe and repent” (III/IV, 12). Here we come to another objection people make against effectual grace. Pronk explains, “The charge is that Calvinists believe that the elect are saved against their will and man is like a puppet being dragged by his hair to Christ.” However, as Pronk goes on to say, in reality, all men resist God’s grace until God’s grace overcomes this resistance in his elect.26 The canons state “that where carnal rebellion and resistance formerly prevailed, a ready and sincere spiritual obedience begins to reign, in which the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consist” (III/IV, 16). God does not save sinners against their wills; rather, He saves their wills, indeed their whole souls, from the reigning power of sin. We should not think that God hinders the freedom of our wills. God sets the enslaved will free with true freedom in Christ. The canons rightly point out that to deny that God can overcome the resistance in man’s will is to deny that God is all-powerful (III/IV, rej. 8). On the contrary, we exercise faith or believe “according to the working of His mighty power” (Eph. 1:19), and our very life and godliness are gifts of his power (2 Peter 1:3). Preaching remains instrumental in conversion because man remains a rational and volitional being, as God created him. The supernatural work of regeneration “does not treat men as senseless stocks and blocks” (III/IV,16). Kevin DeYoung says, “In regeneration the human will is renewed, not removed. People often criticize Reformed theology for reducing men and women to robots or puppets on a string. But Dort will not let us settle for such caricatures.”27 God’s almighty influence operates through “the use of means,” especially “the use of the gospel,” which is “the seed of regeneration.” Therefore, ministers must faithfully perform “the exercise of the Word, sacraments, and discipline,” not tempting God by trying to separate God’s grace from God’s means. The more earnestly and fervently we preach, the more likely God is working: For grace is conferred by means of admonitions; and the more readily we perform our duty, the more eminent usually is this blessing of God working in us, and the

26 Pronk, Expository Sermons on the Canons of Dort, 264. 27 Kevin DeYoung, Grace Defined and Defended: What a 400-Year-Old Confession Teaches Us about Sin, Salvation, and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2019), 78.

The Canons of Dort’s Promotion of Reformed Pastoral, Experiential Preaching

more directly is His work advanced; to whom alone all the glory both of means, and of their saving fruit and efficacy is forever due. Amen. (III/IV, 17)

The Preaching of God’s Word and the Assurance of Salvation The divines of Dort believed that assurance of one’s present and eternal salvation is a possibility for ordinary believers (I, rej. 7; V, 9, rej. 5). Assurance is not a matter of special revelation apart from Scripture, but springs from faith in God’s promises, which He has most abundantly revealed in His Word for our comfort; from the testimony of the Holy Spirit witnessing with our spirit that we are children and heirs of God (Rom. 8:16); and lastly, from a serious and holy desire to preserve a good conscience and to perform good works. (V, 10)

Godfrey comments that here “we have the foundational, essential elements” of the Reformed doctrine of assurance: “The promises of the Word and the reality of a changed life are applied by the Holy Spirit to the faith of the elect to bring comfort, peace, and certainty of salvation.”28 The implication for preaching is that ministers must lead people to meditate deeply on the promises of God, teach them how to recognize and seek the witness of the Spirit, and stir them up to pursue holiness. It is important to notice that in the grounds of assurance, the canons list “faith in God’s promises” first, just as the Westminster divines would later do in the late 1640s in the Westminster Confession of Faith (18.2). The promises of God found in his Word are always the foundational bulwark of our assurance of faith. They alone can provide consistent and stable comfort. The divines of Dort recognize, however, that millions of people can claim that they believe in God’s promises for salvation and assurance without a corroborating witness that their hearts and lives have thereby been renewed and transformed. Thus, the canons insist that the objective ground of certitude in God’s promises must bear fruit subjectively in the lives of believers, if they are to possess genuine assurance of their own salvation. Consequently, the canons link assurance of salvation not to a direct insight into one’s eternal election, but to the observation in oneself of the effects of God’s Word as those effects are described in God’s Word:

28 Godfrey, Saving the Reformation, 162.

195

196

Joel R. Beeke

The elect in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves, with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure, the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God—such as a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc. (I, 12)

Though the canons do not mention preaching at this point, this article has profound implications for Reformed experiential preaching. First, the minister must proclaim the mystery of the doctrine of election and warn the congregation not to attempt to discern one’s election except through faith in the promises of God combined with the practical and experiential effects of saving grace. Second, faithful preaching is discriminatory, that is, it teaches people how to recognize the “fruits of election.” This calls for explanations of the difference between “true faith in Christ” and its counterfeits, the distinction between “filial” or childlike fear and other forms of fear toward God, and an exposition of the qualities highlighted by our Lord in the Beatitudes. Third, while such preaching involves self-examination, it is not mystical or self-absorbed but consists of an exposition and application of “the Word of God.” Fourth, this article of the canons reminds preachers to speak with sensitivity, knowing that Christians experience assurance “in various degrees and in different measures.” In other words, there is variety in a Christian’s spiritual experience over time and variety among the spiritual experiences of different individuals. An elect and regenerate person may not presently enjoy much assurance, but “in due time” may grow significantly. Consequently, the minister must teach people about spiritual growth in maturity and assurance (1 Peter 1:5–7).29 Fifth, the tone of such preaching should emphasize both the goodness of God and the evils of sin, for it aims to produce, by grace, both “spiritual joy and holy pleasure” and “godly sorrow for sin.” This excludes both levity and sourness from Reformed pulpits. The discriminatory aspect of experiential preaching also appears in the canons’ distinction of three kinds of people who lack assurance of their salvation (I, 16). The first group consists of those who participate in church life and use the means of grace but lack a “lively faith in Christ” and an “earnest endeavor after filial obedience.” The second group is the kind of people who “seriously desire” to repent, please God, and be saved from the power of sin, but find themselves falling short like a “smoking flax” or “bruised reed” (Isa. 42:3). 29 Daniel R. Hyde, Grace Worth Fighting For: Recapturing the Vision of God’s Grace in the Canons of Dort (Leesburg, Va.: Davenant Institute, 2019), 95.

The Canons of Dort’s Promotion of Reformed Pastoral, Experiential Preaching

The third group, however, carelessly give themselves up to worldliness and sin. Matthew Barrett observes that the Canons of Dort instruct ministers how to address each group: “The teacher of such hard doctrines as predestination and reprobation must keep these three types of people in mind.”30 When preaching, the minister must address distinct kinds of people in distinct ways. Preaching that encourages assurance for God’s children must be practically applied, for the canons say that the certainty of election gives God’s children more cause “for daily humiliation before Him, for adoring the depth of His mercies, for cleansing themselves, and rendering grateful returns of ardent love to Him, who first manifested so great love towards them” (I, 13). In other words, the divines of the Synod of Dort believed that the doctrine of election should aim for inner joy and peace that overflows in a life devoted to good works for the glory of God alone. Indeed, the way to assurance is paved with the practical application of God’s Word. Election is the “fountain of every saving good,” including faith, holiness, and obedience (Eph. 1:4), and therefore preachers seeking to lead people into assurance of their election must teach and exhort them to exercise faith, holiness, and obedience, yet to do so with humility, for election is not based upon such qualities but is an act of free grace alone (I, 9). Those who do not presently enjoy “an assured confidence of soul” but persist in the use of the means of grace are not to count themselves reprobate and despair but to press on in desire for saving grace (I, 16). The preacher, therefore, must instruct his congregation in the use of the means of grace and offer them motives for making diligent use of them, even in times of spiritual darkness. However, he must also warn them that God has not promised salvation to those who do their best with “the light of nature,” for all of natural man’s efforts are polluted by sin, and, therefore, they must be made alive with Christ (Eph. 2:5) by the supernatural grace of God (I, rej. 4; III/IV, 4, rej. 5). One of the striking features of the Canons of Dort is that they read more like directions for pastoral ministry than theses for academic debate.31 Nowhere is this more evident than in the canons’ treatment of assurance. Venema says, They provide important instruction regarding how ministers of the gospel should encourage those who may struggle with doubts regarding their election and salvation. And they also provide pastoral advice regarding the difference between the cultivation of a proper confidence in the gospel promise of salvation in Christ and the

30 Barrett, The Grace of Godliness, 47. 31 See Godfrey, Saving the Reformation, 81–82.

197

198

Joel R. Beeke

inappropriate presumption of salvation by those whose profession of faith is belied by their willful continuance in sin and disobedience.32

Preaching the Word, Realistic Expectations, and Exhortations The canons exhibit great pastoral sensitivity when they address the spiritual conflicts of Christians and offer hope-filled realism. The saints suffer “daily sins of infirmity” and blemishes on their best works, which require them to humble themselves before God, take refuge in Christ crucified, put sin increasingly to death, pray, exercise themselves in piety, and press on toward perfection (V, 2). At times, darkness falls across their souls: “Believers in this life have to struggle with various carnal doubts” and “grievous temptations” (V, 11). The canons also warn against “backsliding,” for careless children of God abuse “His fatherly kindness,” which may provoke God to withdraw a comforting sense of his presence and give them over to “grievous torments of conscience” (V, 13). Therefore, there is no place in Reformed preaching for foolish idealism or the encouraging of complacent self-confidence. The faithful minister must warn his congregation of the spiritual dangers that they face and the high price of toying with sin. A great means by which God preserves his people in the way is “by the preaching of the gospel,” including its promises, warnings, and exhortations (V, 14). The church needs to be exhorted to “be constant in watching and prayer that they be not led into temptation” (V, 4), together with reading the Scriptures, hearing them read and preached, and meditating on them (V, 14). Preaching as God’s Instrument to Produce Perseverance The Canons of Dort speak only of the perseverance of saints, defined as those “whom God calls, according to his purpose, to the communion of his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and regenerates by the Holy Spirit” (V, 1). By the preserving work of the triune God (1 Cor. 1:8–9), such persons will persevere in true faith and in the works that proceed from faith so long as they continue in the world (V, 3). However, “those who are converted could not persevere in a state of grace if left to their own strength” (V, 3); they do at times “comply with the lusts of the flesh,” and if they neglect watching and praying they may “be drawn into great and heinous sins by Satan” (V, 4).

32 Cornelis P. Venema, “The Assurance of Salvation in The Canons of Dort: A Commemorative Essay” (Part 1), Mid-America Journal of Theology 29 (2018): 24.

The Canons of Dort’s Promotion of Reformed Pastoral, Experiential Preaching

Therefore, the saints persevere by the constant influx of new grace through God’s appointed means. The Canons of Dort say, “as it hath pleased God, by the preaching of the gospel, to begin this work of grace in us, so He preserves, continues, and perfects it by the hearing and reading of His Word, by meditation thereon, and by the exhortations, threatenings, and promises thereof, as well as by the use of the sacraments” (V, 14). This statement not only reminds us of the importance of preaching for the Christian life, but also three dimensions of preaching that must be maintained. DeYoung comments, “All three (promises, threats, and exhortations) are instrumental in God’s plan to grow us in grace. We should not neglect any of the three in the overall diet of our counseling, preaching, and teaching.”33 When the saints do fall, God, by His Word and Spirit, certainly and effectually renews them to repentance, to a sincere and godly sorrow for their sins, that they may seek and obtain remission in the blood of the Mediator, may again experience the favor of a reconciled God, through faith adore His mercies, and henceforward more diligently work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. (V, 7)

Here again, we find a program for Reformed preaching: the minister must warn and woo tempted saints, call the backsliding to repentance, offer Christ in the gospel to those already converted, and exhort the repentant to follow Paul’s injunction in Philippians 2:12–13. In this manner, not only are believers restored from backsliding, but they are also renewed in the assurance and hope which are so crucial to their joy (V, 9–10). Such restoration of saints through the Word make them “much more careful and solicitous to continue in the ways of the Lord” (V, 13). Thus, the minister must instruct and encourage them in practical manners of personal sanctification so that they may walk the narrow road. Preaching and Doxology The Canons of Dort press upon us the calling of God’s redeemed people to offer up their whole lives as an offering of praise and thanksgiving to God. This call arises logically from the unmerited nature of grace. The very privilege of hearing God’s Word when so many lack it is cause to “adore” God with “humble and grateful hearts” (III/IV, 7). Much more, then, should the regenerated praise God 33 DeYoung, Grace Defined and Defended, 92.

199

200

Joel R. Beeke

for the internal and effectual grace of the Spirit. The canons say, “God is under no obligation to confer this grace upon any; for how can He be indebted to man, who had no previous gifts to bestow, as a foundation for such recompense? Nay, who has nothing of his own but sin and falsehood? He therefore who becomes the subject of this grace, owes eternal gratitude to God, and gives Him thanks forever” (III/IV, 15). For we have no cause for pride, as if “we had made ourselves to differ” (III/IV, 15). Barrett says, “Those who have had their eyes opened to the omnipotence of regenerating grace see the King high and lifted up. Witnessing the majesty of a sovereign God does not lead one to be puffed up in himself but cast down to the ground, to his knees, in gratitude and self-effacement.”34 The doxology of God’s people also arises from the mysterious depths of God’s election. Rather than murmur against God, we ought to respond “with holy adoration,” echoing Paul’s words, O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor? Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen (Rom. 11:33–36). (I, 18)

This has two implications for preaching. First, Reformed preaching should summon people to worship God and let the glory of his grace motivate such worship. Second, Reformed worship should be a kind of worship in itself, where the preacher exults in the glory of the Savior whom he proclaims. If the congregation cannot see that its minister is worshiping God while he preaches, then they have cause to question whether he really believes what he is saying. The doctrine of “limited atonement”35 has often been accused of constricting God’s love and consequently causing love to wither in his people. However, the particular redemption portrayed in the Canons of Dort is a love story of the highest order, for Christ laid down his life “as a bridegroom for His bride,” with the results that the redeemed “steadfastly love and faithfully serve Him as their Savior” and “celebrate His praises here and through all eternity” (II, 9). Barrett says, “It is the doctrine of limited atonement that sweetly reminds us that the 34 Barrett, The Grace of Godliness, 95. 35 Richard Muller has pointed out that it is anachronistic to use the term “limited atonement” to describe early Reformed theology such as that in the Canons of Dort, for Reformed theologians of that era spoke not of atonement but “satisfaction.” Richard A. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 58–61, 74–77.

The Canons of Dort’s Promotion of Reformed Pastoral, Experiential Preaching

church, and only the church, is the bride of Christ, for he has paid for her with his blood.”36 Though Satan and the world hate and ridicule the doctrines of God’s sovereign grace, “the spouse of Christ” loves and defends them as her treasure and consolation, to the glory of the One God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (V, 15). Conclusion Venema concludes, “The wonderful confidence of gospel preaching, according to the Canons, is that God is pleased through these means to draw all His people without fail to Himself.”37 In that drawing, sinners are saved and become believers. Then too, as believers, God’s people learn to experience a taste of both the idealism of the Christian life (how and what they ought to experience) and the realism of the Christian life (how far short they fall from the ideal as they engage in holy warfare against sin and all too often stumble). Therefore, let preachers be encouraged. The work of personal evangelism and spiritual maturation is not first and foremost our work, but the work of the triune God who works saving faith and its fruits experientially in the soul through the preaching of his Word.38 As De Jong points out, preaching should never be reduced “to an effort on the preacher’s part which may well prove fruitless.” God sent his Son to do his saving will. God sends the preacher wherever He wills. God sends the Spirit to make the preaching effective to save and mature whomever He wills.39 Such preaching will produce the experiential fruit of the Spirit, such as “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance” (Gal. 5:22–23), as well as the marks of grace Jesus enumerated in the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3–12), and Peter elucidated in 2 Peter 1:3–10. In sum, though the Canons of Dort are a document worthy of historical study and theological analysis, their value does not end with the intellectual or academic, but extends to the pastoral and personal life. The canons declare the redeeming love of God in Jesus Christ for fallen, corrupt, helpless sinners—the greatest love story of all. “We love him because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19), and so the canons are a call to love the Lord our God experientially with all our heart, soul, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves.

36 37 38 39

Barrett, The Grace of Godliness, 74. Venema, But for the Grace of God, 75. Venema, But for the Grace of God, 92–95. De Jong, “Preaching and the Synod of Dort,” in Crisis in the Reformed Churches, 127.

201

202

Joel R. Beeke

The Canons of Dort cannot be rightly received or understood without warm and earnest pastoral and experiential prayer to God and faith in his Word. Having opened with Christ crucified, who is the One we preach, the Canons of Dort close by calling upon the Lord, who gives the gifts of preaching, pastorally preaches in our preaching, and presses our preaching home into the heart experientially: May Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who, seated at the Father’s right hand, gives gifts to men, sanctify us in the truth, bring to the truth those who err, shut the mouths of the calumniators [false accusers] of sound doctrine, and endue the faithful minister of His Word with the spirit of wisdom and discretion, that all their discourses may tend to the glory of God and the edification of those who hear them. Amen.

R.T. (Dolf) te Velde

12.

Effective and Divine: The Role of the Holy Spirit in the Canons of Dort

In the past few years, the Synod of Dordrecht has gained wide attention in the Reformed world on both scholarly and popular levels, with the commemoration of its 400th anniversary. While of a different caliber than the great Reformation of 1517, the synod is an event that deserves to be remembered for its relevance for today. The assembly of the Dutch Reformed Churches in 1618–1619 was not just a “provincial” meeting; it constituted a uniquely international Reformed council, and its doctrinal decisions have had an impact far beyond the boundaries of the Low Countries. When people think about the Synod of Dort and its doctrinal statements, they will mostly focus on the doctrine of predestination.1 Quite understandably, this is because the controversy over election and reprobation that started between Jacob Arminius and Francis Gomarus in 1603, and that continued throughout the next fifteen years between Remonstrants and Counter-Remonstrants, was the immediate reason for the convocation of the Synod. The debates concerning predestination are still alive, with Arminians and Calvinists combating each other until the present day. It is misleading to read the Canons of Dort (CD) solely through the lens of election and reprobation. In this cluster of issues—the character of the divine decree, the role of human free choice, the relation between eternity and time, and the extent of the atonement, for example—the whole Christian understanding of salvation is at stake. Therefore, the understanding of the Holy Spirit and his work is central to the doctrine of salvation as expressed and codified by the Synod of Dort in its canons.2 1 A collection of essays on the doctrine of election centered on the Synod of Dort is found in Frank van der Pol, ed., The Doctrine of Election in Reformed Perspective: Historical and Theological Investigations of the Synod of Dordt 1618–1619, Refo500 Academic Studies, vol. 51 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018). For an earlier volume of papers on Dort, see Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg, eds., Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619), Brill’s Series in Church History vol. 49 (Leiden: Brill, 2010). Still valuable is the groundbreaking study of the doctrine of predestination in the Reformed tradition by Cornelis Graafland, Van Calvijn tot Barth: Oorsprong en ontwikkeling van de leer der verkiezing in het Gereformeerd Protestantisme [From Calvin to Barth: Origin and Development of the Doctrine of Election in Reformed Protestantism] (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1987). 2 On the occasion of the Synod of Dort’s 400th anniversary, a number of English books on the canons were published, of which I mention the following three: Kevin DeYoung, Grace

204

R.T. (Dolf) te Velde

Throughout the canons, the Holy Spirit is mentioned forty-five times. These references will not be discussed one by one, but rather will be placed within the framework of a number of theological aspects.3 Before entering the more substantial analysis of Dort’s theology of the Holy Spirit, a few general observations are in order. To begin, the places in which the canons speak about the Holy Spirit and his work are distributed over all four heads of doctrine.4 The distribution is not entirely equal: the first two heads, on the divine decree of election and reprobation, and on Christ’s death and our redemption through it, only have two references each to the Holy Spirit. In the next head of doctrine (III/IV), on human corruption and conversion to God, the main text alone contains four full and explicit references, plus some expressions that speak of the Holy Spirit in an indirect manner. In addition, the rejection of errors attached to this head has another four explicit statements about the Holy Spirit and the character of his work in regeneration. The most abundant teaching concerning the Spirit is found in the fifth chapter, on the perseverance of the saints: the main text speaks of the Spirit nine times, and the rejection of errors has another three references to the Spirit and his work. These numbers by themselves do already suggest some important insights. First, the emphasis is on the role of the Holy Spirit in changing believers’ lives and in keeping them safe in communion with God. Next, the fact that a considerable number of references to the Holy Spirit is found in the polemical sections of the Canons of Dort indicates that within the larger controversies of

Defined and Defended: What a 400-Year-Old Confession Teaches Us about Sin, Salvation, and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2019); W. Robert Godfrey, Saving the Reformation: The Pastoral Theology of the Canons of Dort (Orlando, Fla.: Reformation Trust, 2019); Daniel R. Hyde, Grace Worth Fighting For: Recapturing the Vision of God’s Grace in the Canons of Dort (Lincoln, Neb.: Davenant Institute, 2019). Especially Hyde’s exposition contains a more detailed discussion of aspects of the work of the Holy Spirit. 3 Some of the references counted here are implicit, by speaking of spiritual things or spiritual benefits. The complete list of references is provided in an appendix to this chapter. The text of the canons is quoted here from the recent edition by the Christian Reformed Church, Our Faith: Ecumenical Creeds, Reformed Confessions, and Other Resources (Grand Rapids: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2013). The original Latin and Dutch versions of the canons can be found in J. N. Bakhuizen van den Brink, ed., De Nederlandse belijdenisgeschriften in authentieke teksten met inleiding en tekstvergelijkingen, 2nd ed. (Amsterdam: Ton Bolland, 1976), 225–94; cf. also the recent edition by Herman J. Selderhuis, “Die Dordrechter Canones,” in Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, ed. A. Mühling and P. Opitz, vol. 3/2 (1605–1675) (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2015), 87–161. 4 The division of the canons into five heads of doctrine corresponds to the Remonstrance of 1610, in which Dutch Reformed ministers who supported the views of Jacob Arminius had expressed their doctrinal positions. The third and fourth articles of the Remonstrance on grace and regeneration are taken together in the Synod’s response.

Effective and Divine: The Role of the Holy Spirit in the Canons of Dort

the seventeenth century there were also incisive differences in understanding the nature and the power of the work of the Spirit. The main body of this chapter will address three questions concerning the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Canons of Dort. First, how is the role of the Spirit described in connection with the other persons of the Trinity, the Father and the Son? Second, how is the work of the Spirit understood in relation to the human subjects in whom or with whom he works? Third, what is the mode of operation of the Holy Spirit, and in what sense is the Spirit “irresistible”? Trinitarian Framework In the first two heads of the canons, God is seen in action mostly in the persons of the Father and the Son. While most articles speak of God “in general,” the primary reference seems to be to the Father. He is the one who “chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race,” and who “decreed to give to Christ those chosen for salvation” (CD I, 7). The first head points out that because God is “most wise, unchangeable, allknowing, and almighty, so the election made by him can neither be suspended nor altered, revoked, or annulled” (I, 11). The second chapter quite naturally gives a prominent place to the Son of God, because He is the one who gave himself as a sacrifice “in order that he might give satisfaction for us” (II, 2). In this connection, the canons put extra emphasis on the person of the Son of God, by explaining that the great value of Christ’s death on our behalf rests on the fact “that the person who suffered it is…not only a true and perfectly holy human, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit” (II, 4). If the initial statements on the decree of predestination could give the impression that they conceive of God in terms of a general and abstract deity, the quotation just provided from the head on the atonement makes it clear that such an interpretation would be mistaken. In the common work of salvation as described by the canons, one sees a conscious differentiation and cooperation between the three persons. In the statement just cited, it is the full deity which the Son shares with the Father and the Spirit that makes him such a unique person, and that accounts for the infinite power and value “sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.” The Scripture references added to article 4 of the second head refer to Hebrews chapters 4 and 7,5 where it is explained how Christ is a high priest who can at once identify himself with our weaknesses 5 The origin and status of the Scripture references appear to be unclear. Apart from the quotations that were written in full—mainly in the Rejection of Errors—the original text of the canons

205

206

R.T. (Dolf) te Velde

(Heb. 4:15) and is at the same time “holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens” (Heb. 7:26). Following this line, one would suggest including a further reference from Hebrews 9:14: “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” The sacrifice of Christ to atone for one’s sins is not an isolated action of the Son alone; it is a common act of the triune God, actively supported and enabled by the Spirit, who was given to the Son “without limit” (John 3:34).6 Another instance of the strong involvement of each of the three persons is given in article 8 of the second main head. It discusses the free plan and gracious will of God the Father to ensure that “the effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work itself out in all the elect.” In order to effectively redeem them, it was decreed by God that “Christ should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death).” Three further remarks are in place to explain this concise statement. First, although the Holy Spirit is mentioned here in parentheses, his role should not be underestimated: he is the one who gives faith to the elect. Second, when we hear the canons speak about the “gifts” of the Holy Spirit, we should realize that it does not refer to what many Christians today understand by the gifts or charismata of the Spirit. To put it more strongly: the canons here hint toward a proper valuing of the gift of faith as central and fundamental to all other things bestowed on the believers by the Holy Spirit. Third, just as there is no isolated view of the atonement offered by the Son of God, so there is also no separation between the Spirit and the Son as the principal cause of saving faith. Faith is a gift of the Spirit, as the canons further explain in head III/IV on conversion and regeneration. At the same time, this gift was acquired by the Son through his death. This means that the Spirit always operates in intimate conjunction with Christ and on the foundation of his mediatorial work.7 This strong connection is also found in a different phrasing in the first head of the canons. Article 7 describes the content of the decree of election in these does not contain Scripture references. Later editions may vary in the exact references they provide on the basis of verbal quotations or allusions. 6 A detailed exegetical and theological discussion of the involvement of the Spirit in Christ’s work of atonement is given by David L. Allen, “The Role of the Holy Spirit in the Atonement and Its Application” (unpublished paper), accessed September 21, 2019, http://drdavidlallen.com/bible/my-evangelical-theological-society-2018-paper-the-roleof-the-holy-spirit-in-the-atonement-and-its-application/. 7 As Hyde rightly argues in Grace, 245–50, the trinitarian cooperation of the Son and the Spirit entails a strong unity of Word and Spirit in the work of regeneration. Referring to John Calvin’s Institutes and to the Synopsis of a Purer Theology (1625) by the Leiden professors of theology, Hyde states that regeneration always includes a “mediate” element, because the “imperishable seed” of regeneration is the “living and abiding word of God” (1 Peter 1:23).

Effective and Divine: The Role of the Holy Spirit in the Canons of Dort

words: “God decreed to give to Christ those chosen for salvation, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ’s fellowship through the Word and Spirit.” It is just a few words, and one can easily overlook them, but arguably this phrase reveals that in the Reformed understanding of election as codified by the canons, the Holy Spirit is involved in the decree as actively as the Father and the Son. Election is not an abstract and capricious act of God’s mere good-pleasure; it entails the very particular and personal application of salvation by bringing the elect into Christ’s fellowship. This, again, is exactly where one finds the Holy Spirit at work. His work is immediately connected to the Word that proceeds from the Son, but he adds his own effective operation to bring the saving Word home. The next sentence of article 7 points forward to the next chapters by stating that it is God’s decree “to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of the Son, to glorify them”—an obvious allusion to the “golden chain of salvation” of Romans 8:28–30. To conclude this section, the Canons of Dort describe the work of salvation as a coherent operation in which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each are fully involved. This threefold engagement reveals the deep, eternal intention of God to start, pursue, and complete our redemption. The special place of the Holy Spirit in this trinitarian interplay can be identified as laying the connection between Christ and the elect, applying the merits of Christ to the believers through the gift of faith that unites them to their Savior, and warranting the full realization of salvation through all stages until the final perseverance of the saints. The Spirit and the Human Subject The debates of the early seventeenth century were not only about the understanding of God’s eternal decree of predestination. At least equally important was the question of man’s free choice and its powers after the fall. Since the confrontation between Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther on this issue, the Reformers had commonly emphasized the total inability of humans to convert to God by their own free will.8 While it was stated that before the fall the first parents had the ability to choose freely between good and evil, the state of humans after the fall was described as total corruption and slavery to sin.

8 Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (repr., Grand Rapids: Revell, 2009); John Calvin, Institutes, 2.1–5. The inability of the human free will in matters of salvation was confessionally codified in, for example, article 18 of the Augsburg Confession, and chapter 9 of the Second Helvetic Confession.

207

208

R.T. (Dolf) te Velde

With Arminius and his followers, a different sentiment enters the discussions within Reformed theology. It is not so easy to pinpoint their exact position, because they chose careful wordings to express (or hide) their views.9 In the Remonstrance of 1610, for example, one reads in the third article: That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as saving faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”10

At first sight, this seems to be an outright affirmation of the Reformed doctrine of total corruption. On a closer look, however, the Remonstrant conception of the divine grace that is bestowed on humans by the Holy Spirit has some important qualifications. It is described by the Remonstrance as “prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace.” This is standard terminology from medieval scholastic theology, and it allows for distinctions in the mode of operation and in the degree in which the human subject itself can be said to perform or contribute to the acts of repentance, faith, and good works. Especially the notions of “assistance” and “cooperation” seem to be open to a synergistic understanding of the process of salvation. In response, the Canons of Dort take an absolute perspective. The combined third/fourth head opens with a strong statement on the complete loss of original righteousness with all its components: knowledge, will, and emotions. This view of the total corruption of humanity opens the insight into the corresponding necessity of “the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit” (III/IV, 3). Article 6 of head III/IV puts it as follows: “What, therefore, neither the light of nature nor the law can do, God accomplishes by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the Word or the ministry of reconciliation.” After the “earnest call of the Gospel” 9 It is a matter of debate as to what extent Arminius himself deviated from the Reformation’s understanding of God’s saving grace. Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) argue for a strongly “Augustinian” understanding of Arminius’s soteriology. Godfrey, Saving the Reformation, 185–227 provides a detailed critique of revisionist scholarship on Arminius, and eventually concurs with Abraham Kuyper’s description of Arminius as a “crafty fox.” 10 “The Five Arminian Articles A.D. 1610,” in Philip Schaff and David S. Schaff, eds., The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes, 6th ed. (repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 3:545–49.

Effective and Divine: The Role of the Holy Spirit in the Canons of Dort

to all has been expounded, the canons return to the power of the Holy Spirit (III/IV, 11): Moreover, when God carries out this good pleasure in the elect, or works true conversion in them, God not only sees to it that the gospel is proclaimed to them outwardly, and enlightens their minds powerfully by the Holy Spirit so that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God, but, by the effective operation of the same regenerating Spirit, God also penetrates into the inmost being, opens the closed heart, softens the hard heart, and circumcises the heart that is uncircumcised.11

One reason to speak in such strong terms about the work of the Spirit is to make it clear that coming to conversion “must not be credited to human effort, as though one distinguishes oneself by free choice from others who are furnished with equal or sufficient grace for faith and conversion” (III/IV, 10). Here, the Arminian qualifications of different types of grace are denied. There is no independent role or functioning of the human subject in the event of conversion. Article 12 drives the point home by speaking of the regeneration “which God works in us without our help.” The latter phrase is even more straightforward in Latin: quam Deus sine nobis, in nobis operatur. The question therefore is whether the mode of operation of the Holy Spirit rules out any activity of the human subject who is involved in conversion and regeneration. The first answer is yes, and according to the canons, this is because of the total inability of sinful humans to return to God and to will the good instead of evil. On this account, the canons describe the event of regeneration as similar to a new creation and the raising from the dead. After the fall, the human will is not merely weakened or wounded—it is dead. The birth of a new man or woman does not arise from natural powers—it is a “supernatural work” of God. Only in this way, by the life-giving Spirit, can humans be born again. This radical dependence of the believer on the Holy Spirit is not only relevant in the initial stage of regeneration; it is maintained throughout the whole Christian life. So, head V of the canons, on the perseverance of the saints, time and again points to the renewal and the preservation by the Spirit as the cause by which those who fall in sin do not ultimately “forfeit the grace of adoption and the state of justification” (V, 6). Again, does the Holy Spirit rule out the activity of the human subject? The second answer is no. Immediately after the vivid description of the marvelous 11 For an explanation of the verbs employed to describe the Spirit’s operation in regeneration, see Hyde, Grace, 264–65.

209

210

R.T. (Dolf) te Velde

work of regeneration, article 12 of head III/IV continues: “As a result, all those in whose hearts God works in this marvelous way are certainly, unfailingly, and effectively reborn and do actually believe. And then the will, now renewed, is not only activated and motivated by God, but in being activated by God is also itself active. For this reason, people themselves, by that grace which they have received, are also rightly said to believe and to repent.” It is worth noting that the radical dependence on the power of the Spirit does not lead to complete and abiding passivity. This has sometimes been perceived as the consequence of the Calvinist view of election, grace, and regeneration. And indeed, in some hyper-Calvinist and pietist circles, it is understood and experienced this way. The Canons of Dort, however, do not point in that direction. Although the initial and fundamental change of heart that makes a person new does not result from our own effort or assent, at the very moment the will is renewed it starts functioning again, and now in the proper direction. What started “in us and without us” is continued by a twofold operation: God motivates and activates our will, and then the will itself becomes active in believing and repenting. Again, the Latin phrase is more exact and straightforward: the will, acted upon by God, acts itself (a Deo acta, agit et ipsa).12 Irresistible Grace While the Remonstrants seemed to endorse a strong notion of grace and to assign the decisive role to the Holy Spirit, the difference becomes clear as soon as the mode of operation of the Spirit is articulated. Jacob Arminius, in his Declaration of Sentiments, explicitly indicates that this is the exact point of the controversy. As his own view, he states that “according to the Scriptures, many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered.”13 The canons take issue with this position in the rejection of errors of head III/IV. Rejection 8 replies to the Remonstrants: “this does away with all effective functioning of God’s grace in our conversion and subjects the activity of Almighty God to human will; it is contrary to the apostles, who teach that ‘we believe by virtue of the effective working of God’s mighty strength’ (Eph. 1:19)”; two further quotations from Paul and Peter follow. While this response does 12 On the canons’ assertion that in regeneration people are not treated as “stocks and blocks,” see Hyde, Grace, 272–75, including a reference to the Dutch Annotations on Ezekiel 11:19 which describe the “new heart” as “a change of the spirit, not in substance and essence, but in qualities and powers.” 13 W. Stephen Gunter, Arminius and His Declaration of Sentiments: An Annotated Translation with Introduction and Theological Commentary (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2012), 141.

Effective and Divine: The Role of the Holy Spirit in the Canons of Dort

not explicitly mention the Holy Spirit, it is clear from the further context that the “effective working of God’s mighty strength” should be taken primarily as a reference to the Spirit as the one who produces faith in the believer. Rejection 7 explains that this has to do with the mode of operation that is ascribed to the Spirit in the work of conversion. According to the Remonstrants, God’s grace works by means of gentle, moral persuasion, and this persuasion that makes an appeal to human reason is sufficient to make the natural person spiritual. The Remonstrants thus deny that there is a direct and immediate operation of the Spirit on the human will. This is exactly what the canons affirm. As the synod reads the whole of Scripture, it “recognizes besides this persuasion also another, far more effective and divine way in which the Holy Spirit acts in human conversion. As Ezekiel 36:26 puts it: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; and I will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” The positive exposition of the doctrine of regeneration in head III/IV employs the same strong language about the giving of an entirely new heart and making the dead heart alive. From the perspective of philosophical anthropology, the difference between the Remonstrants and the Counter-Remonstrants is that Arminius and his followers emphasized the role of the intellect and argued that if good and compelling arguments or promises would be offered to the human mind, his or her will would immediately assent. The fundamental problem of sin is that we lack the proper understanding of God and of the good he wants to give us. Once the blindness of our soul has been repaired, one will see the light and embrace it.14 The Counter-Remonstrants, on the other hand, conceived of the human will as the decisive faculty of the soul. The problem of sin is that our will has become depraved: it can no longer will the good, even if it is right before our eyes, but it follows its own evil desires. For this reason, a person can only be converted to God if the will is changed and restored in the right direction. In this renewal of the will, the Spirit operates in such a way that he cannot be resisted. Of course, resistance is the common condition of sinful humans. However, in the very moment the Spirit bestows saving grace on us, it is impossible for us to resist. Otherwise, there would be no change and no return to God. In the doctrinal framework of Dort, the notion of irresistible grace is just another way to speak of the effectiveness of the work of the Holy Spirit. In the chain of redemption, starting with eternal election and finishing with ultimate perseverance, it is impossible that God would drop his purpose of redemption halfway. Moreover, the success of salvation cannot be dependent on human free choice because that is where the whole story of humanity went 14 See the analysis by Aza Goudriaan, “The Synod of Dordt on Arminian Anthropology,” in Goudriaan and Van Lieburg, Revisiting, 81–106.

211

212

R.T. (Dolf) te Velde

wrong, in such a way that it cannot be repaired from our side. The Holy Spirit is the answer to the question of how radically corrupted sinners can be turned into children of God.15 One further aspect of the terminology of the canons seems to be problematic in this respect. It is hinted at in the description of faith as a gift following on regeneration (III/IV, 14): “In this way, therefore, faith is a gift of God, not in the sense that it is offered by God for people to choose, but that it is in actual fact bestowed on them, breathed and infused into them.” The tricky word here is “infused.” Do the Reformed fathers of Dort here return to the medieval Catholic notion of “infused grace,” as if grace is a sort of substance that can be transmitted in an almost physical, material way?16 Indeed, the Remonstrants had made a strong case against this, and the canons summarize and reject the view held by the Remonstrants “that in the true conversion of men and women new qualities, dispositions, or gifts cannot be infused or poured into their will by God, and indeed that the faith [or believing] by which we first come to conversion and from which we receive the name ‘believers’ is not a quality or gift infused by God, but only a human act, and that it cannot be called a gift except in respect to the power of attaining faith” (III/IV, rej. 6). As one can see, the crucial reason why the Remonstrants deny that in the event of conversion new qualities or dispositions are infused is that they want to maintain the relative independence of the human will as the source of the act of faith. The canon’s response to this error does not enter into a detailed discussion, but mainly refers to a number of places in Scripture that speak about the gift of the Spirit in terms of “pouring” or “infusing”: “For thereby they contradict the Holy Scriptures which declare that…‘I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring’ (Isa. 44:3). And ‘The love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us’ (Rom. 5:5)” (III/IV, rej. 6). Of course, there is more to be said. The language of infused dispositions helps to avoid the suggestion of an empty and neutral status of the renewed will. If the Spirit really changes our hearts, this means that we actually start to have

15 A more detailed analysis of the notion of “irresistible grace” is provided in my article “Gods genade en onze vrijheid: in welke zin is genade onweerstaanbaar?” [God’s Grace and our Freedom: In What Sense is Grace Irresistible?], Theologia Reformata 62, no. 3 (September 2019), 241–53. An expanded English version of this paper is in preparation. 16 For a brief recent statement of this criticism, see Gijsbert van den Brink, Dordt in context: Gereformeerde accenten in katholieke theologie [Dort in Context: Reformed Emphases in Catholic Theology] (Heerenveen: Groen, 2018), 49, with reference to the more elaborate discussion by Vincent Brümmer, Speaking of a Personal God: An Essay in Philosophical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 83–89.

Effective and Divine: The Role of the Holy Spirit in the Canons of Dort

good and holy thoughts and actions, which do not come from ourselves, but are elicited in the Christian by the Spirit. Conclusion This essay has attempted to sketch how the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and his work functions in the Canons of Dort. If we look carefully at the references to the Spirit throughout the canons, a coherent picture arises. The Triune work of salvation cannot be conceived without the constitutive and integral role of the Spirit, next to the Father and the Son. This not only holds for the application of salvation in regeneration and perseverance. It even stretches back to the sacrificial death of the Son of God for our atonement, and to the eternal decree of election. On this level, it is manifest that the canons confess the Spirit’s full divinity. On this account, the Spirit is engaged together with the Father and the Son in the plan of salvation and its execution. The power of the Holy Spirit is contrasted by the canons with the radical inability of humans to bring themselves back to God after their fall into sin. The insight that we are “dead in transgressions and sins” strictly belongs together with the fact that we are made alive only by the life-giving Spirit of God. While human subjectivity is not annihilated in the event of conversion, there is no independent contribution from our side. By comparing the work of regeneration to the resurrection of the dead, the canons rule out any synergistic understanding of grace that was left open by the Remonstrants. The debate about the “irresistible” character of the Spirit’s work in regeneration enters upon questions of philosophical anthropology: on what level of the human soul does the Spirit direct his operation? Although some might assert that the terms employed by the canons on this level of the discussion might be open to improvement, the doctrinal intention of the canons is clear: only if the renewal of our hearts by the Spirit is effective and not merely moral17 will we actually be turned from dead slaves of sin into loving children of God. The divine and effective power of the Spirit of God is needed to achieve this change.

17 On the mode of the Spirit’s operation as not merely moral, but even “physical,” see also Hyde, Grace, 266–68.

213

214

R.T. (Dolf) te Velde

Appendix: List of References to the Holy Spirit in the Canons of Dort

Head I

Article 7

12 II

4 8

III/IV

1

3 6

11

16

III/IV, 5 Rejection of Errors 6

7

8

Phrase God decreed to give to Christ those chosen for salvation, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ’s fellowship through the Word and Spirit. noticing within themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word the only begotten Son of God [suffered death], of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit that Christ should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death). Human beings were originally…with a true and sound knowledge of the Creator and things spiritual, in will and heart with righteousness, and in all emotions with purity Without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God What, therefore, neither the light of nature nor the law can do, God accomplishes by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the Word or the ministry of reconciliation. enlightens their minds powerfully by the Holy Spirit…. By the effective operation of the same regenerating Spirit, God also penetrates into the inmost being, opens the closed heart, softens the hard heart, and circumcises the heart that is uncircumcised. spiritually revives, heals, reforms.... As a result, a ready and sincere obedience of the Spirit now begins to prevail…. In this the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consists. “They” (Paul and his companions) “were kept by the Holy Spirit from speaking God’s word in Asia”; and “When they had come to Mysia, they tried to go to Bithynia, but the Spirit would not allow them to” (Acts 16:6–7). “I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring” (Isa. 44:3); “The love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us” (Rom. 5:5). besides this persuasion also another, far more effective and divine way in which the Holy Spirit acts in human conversion. As Ezekiel 36:26 puts it: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you” Is it possible to resist God’s Spirit?… It is contrary to the apostles, who teach that “we believe by virtue of the effective working of God’s mighty strength” (Eph. 1:19)

Effective and Divine: The Role of the Holy Spirit in the Canons of Dort

Head V

Article 1

2 5 6 7 8 10 11 15 V, 4 Rejection of Errors 5

6

Phrase Those people whom God…calls into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord and regenerates by the Holy Spirit, God also sets free from the dominion and slavery of sin to put the flesh to death more and more by the Spirit of supplication and by holy exercises of godliness they greatly offend God, deserve the sentence of death, grieve the Holy Spirit For God…does not take the Holy Spirit from his own completely, even when they fall grievously Secondly, by his Word and Spirit God certainly and effectively renews them to repentance the sealing of the Holy Spirit can neither be invalidated nor wiped out from the testimony of “the Holy Spirit testifying with our spirit that we are God’s children and heirs” (Rom. 8:16-17) But God, the Father of all comfort,… by the Holy Spirit revives in them the assurance of their perseverance. To this God alone, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be honor and glory forever. Amen. [The Remonstrants ] who teach that those who truly believe and have been born again can commit the sin that leads to death (the sin against the Holy Spirit). “They who obey his commands remain in him and he in them. And this is how we know that he remains in us: by the Spirit he gave us” (1 John 3:24). For these people [the Remonstrants ] show that they do not know the effective operation of God’s grace and the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit

215

Conclusion

Joel E. Kim

13.

The Relevance of Dort for Today

Christians are by nature contrarians. To paraphrase the Oxford English Dictionary, to be a contrarian is to go against the popular opinion. Christianity teaches that by losing, one wins. By giving, one receives. By humbling oneself, one becomes exalted. By being nothing, one becomes something. By dying, one lives. The way of the cross does not always make sense to those trained in the art of success, strength, influence, and power, but Christians continue to proclaim that message so despised by the world. The concept of seminary education is also contrarian. In an age when Christianity is sometimes ignored, ridiculed, and attacked, seminaries are asking people to accept a calling that will not pay them well, will not make them popular, and will not guarantee them success. Like a seminary, Reformed churches are contrarian. Maintaining and upholding theological distinctions, as summarized in the confessional documents of the various churches, certainly is not in keeping with the flow of contemporary culture and even a Christian environment where authority is challenged, history is ignored, and distinctions are sometimes muted. Confessional documents often seem quaint and anachronistic at best and distracting and perhaps even dangerous at worst. As one of the major confessional documents that flowed from the Reformation, the Canons of Dort is no less ignored in the contemporary church. Yet, the Canons of Dort is as relevant today as it was in the seventeenth century. This will be illustrated in three parts: the canons as modern, the canons as missional, and the canons as doxological. The Canons as Modern Samuel Miller, a Presbyterian minister and professor of theology and church history at Princeton Theological Seminary, penned the introduction of the publication of The Articles of the Synod of Dort in 1841.1 On introducing the document produced by the first international synod of the Reformed churches in 1618, he provocatively wrote, “The convocation and proceedings of the Synod 1 Samuel Miller, “Introductory Essay,” in The Articles of the Synod of Dordt, trans. Thomas Scott (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1841).

220

Joel E. Kim

of Dordt, may be considered as among the most interesting events of the seventeenth century.”2 Considering that the Westminster Assembly met in the same century, this was quite a statement. He then explained, “Yet the Synod of Dordt had, undoubtedly, a species of importance peculiar to itself, and altogether pre-eminent. It was not merely a meeting of the select divines of a single nation, but a convention of the Calvinistic world, to bear testimony against a rising and obtrusive error; to settle a question in which all the Reformed Churches of Europe had an immediate and deep interest.”3 Samuel Miller later pointed out that the Westminster Standards stood alone as “monuments of judgment, taste, and sound theology” that have not been equaled, but that the canons stand next in order.4 What is the question that unsettled the Reformed churches in Europe? Samuel Miller concluded his introduction by stating, “The question was, whether the opinions of Arminius, which were then agitating so many minds, could be reconciled with the Confession of the Belgic Churches?”5 At the heart of the dispute was the teaching of James Arminius (1559–1609), a pastor and later a professor in the Dutch Reformed churches whose teachings—mostly unpublished during his lifetime—presented a challenge to the prevailing teachings of the Reformation.6 As the controversy surrounding his teachings began to escalate when he became a professor at the University of Leiden, Arminius prepared formal statements of his theology and his differences with the received teachings of the church—where he remained a minister and professor—and presented to the State of Holland in 1608 in his Declaration of Sentiments. What were his arguments? First, he argued that grace ought to be understood as resistible and that human beings, once saved, might be able to resist God’s grace to the point of rendering it ineffectual. This also meant that God’s election rested on foreknowledge of faith. Second, he also argued that the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism ought to be revised, particularly on those doctrinal points not absolutely fundamental to salvation. Finally, though acknowledging that synods have rejected views similar to his, he presented a 2 3 4 5 6

Miller, “Introductory Essay,” 5. Miller, “Introductory Essay,” 5. Miller, “Introductory Essay,” 5. Miller, “Introductory Essay,” 5–6. For a brief history of the events leading to the Synod of Dort, see W. Stephen Gunter, Arminius and His Declaration of Sentiments: An Annotated Translation with Introduction and Theological Commentary (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University, 2012), 103–60; Jonathan I. Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 450–77. For a recent popular history, see W. Robert Godfrey, Saving the Reformation: The Pastoral Theology of the Canons of Dordt (Sanford, Fla.: Reformation Trust, 2019), 7–31.

The Relevance of Dort for Today

case for broadening the understanding of Reformed theology, which he believed were unnecessarily narrow and rigid. If his intention in presenting his Declaration was to reduce the tensions caused by his teachings, he did not succeed. His deteriorating health and his premature death on October 19, 1609, prevented him further from defending his positions and being at the center of the continuing disputes. The questions and disputes that followed Jacob Arminius throughout his pastoral and teaching career did not end with his death. His followers soon continued to advocate for the views of Arminius in a protest document called the “Remonstrance” in 1610 with the document signers often called the “Remonstrants.” It is true that the canons addressed five doctrinal topics, but not because Calvinism—or more accurately Reformed theology—can be reduced to five points, but because the articles of doctrine put forth by the Remonstrants contained five main points.7 First, the Remonstrants articulated an understanding of the divine decree, stating “that God by an eternal and immutable decree has in Jesus Christ his Son determined before the foundation of the world to save out of the fallen, sinful human race, those in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ.” Second, in Christ Jesus, the divine decree was accomplished when “Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man.” Third, humanity “does not have saving faith of himself nor by the power of his own free will,” a statement about the condition of humanity in sin. Fourth, though saving faith is not possible apart from God, nevertheless “with respect to the mode of this grace, it is not irresistible.” In other words, saving faith can be resisted and rejected, and the Remonstrants cited Acts 7 and “elsewhere in many places” to support its conclusion. Finally, if saving faith can be resisted, whether a believer will persevere in saving faith without falling away from faith by embracing “the present world” and departing “from the pure doctrine once given to them,” required further inquiry before the signers of the Remonstrance were “able to teach this with full persuasion of [their] heart.” This seeming coy agnosticism toward believer’s preservation did nothing to slow the growing concern within the Reformed churches that the Remonstrants severely undermined the doctrines of grace, a central inheritance of the Reformation. It is worth noting at this point that when the delegates from the Reformed churches around Europe gathered in Dordrecht in the United Provinces for the 7 Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, The Evangelical Protestant Creeds (New York: Harper and Row, 1931; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 545–49. For a helpful collection of documents in English, see the Appendix of Peter Y. De Jong, ed., Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dort, 1618-1619 (Grandville, Mich.: Reformed Fellowship, 1968), 243ff.

221

222

Joel E. Kim

first international synod on November 13, 1618, they did not set out to summarize the received teachings of the Reformation in five points. The ubiquitous yet problematic reference to the “five points of Calvinism,” or the memorable yet modern mnemonic acronym of TULIP to refer to the doctrines of grace, obscures the historical origins of the canons. The result of this confusion is that among the Three Forms of Unity, the Canons of Dort have been the least understood and most often ignored, receiving a fraction of the scholarly attention that the more celebrated Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession have received, until more recently. Rather than a summary of Reformed (or Calvinistic) theology, the Canons of Dort remain a momentous response to the five alleged errors of the Remonstrants about the Scriptures, God, Christ, his atoning work, and sinful human condition. To many moderns, this discussion may seem too cerebral or irrelevant for their tastes and preferences. But are the Canons only for the seventeenth century? Today, many Christians are in the midst of trying to answer the question of whether humanity can live without God. Both on the news and in our lives, evangelicals regularly witness the hostility of the world to Christianity and the God of the Bible. Rebellion against God and rejection of his reign certainly is nothing new. The Scriptures often lament the arrogance of the enemies of God who often exchange God for mere creatures, call evil good, and reject the absolutes that come with belief in God. In the midst of these challenges, the Scriptures also honestly describe the crisis of faith among believers who are incredulous at the changing world but filled with questions and doubts about one’s faith. This crisis of faith is everywhere in the face of a society that is changing the teachings of Scripture and that considers the values of Christians quaint and anachronistic at best and dangerous to society at worst. Moreover, this crisis of faith affects what one believes and how one understands theology. Every two years, Ligonier Ministries publishes “The State of Theology,” providing “the theological temperature” of evangelicals in America.8 In its introduction, the survey states, “Evangelicals have a great concern for the gospel, the evangel, yet a majority of them also express some views that are contrary to the truth of the Bible. For example, although evangelicals believe that Jesus died on the cross for their salvation, many do not fully understand the gravity of sin.” This claim is supported by the survey’s findings. In response to the statement, “Everyone sins a little, but most people are good by nature,” 52 percent either strongly or somewhat agreed (28 percent and 25 perfect, respectively). To the statement that “God accepts the worship of all religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam,” 51 percent agreed and 42 percent disagreed with additional 7 percent being unsure. When the statement is, “Religious belief 8 “The State of Theology,” accessed January 18, 2019, http://thestateoftheology.com.

The Relevance of Dort for Today

is a matter of personal opinion; it is not about objective truth,” 60 percent of the adults in the U.S. surveyed agreed with the statement and 30 percent disagreed. Among evangelicals, 32 percent agreed with the statement. That the majority of evangelicals do not agree with the statement remains encouraging, but that even 32 percent agree with the statement is understandably alarming. Finally, with the statement, “The Bible, like all sacred writings, contains helpful accounts of ancient myths, but is not literally true,” 53 percent agreed, a noticeable change in the wrong direction from 46 percent who agreed with the same statement in 2016 and 44 percent in 2014. It concludes this way: “The 2018 State of Theology survey reveals deep confusion about the Bible’s teaching, not only among Americans as a whole, but also among evangelicals…. These results show the urgent need for sound biblical teaching and the bold preaching of the gospel. Millions of people do not understand the holiness of God, the reality of sin, and the one way of salvation in Jesus Christ.” The lack of theological depth, faithful teaching of the bible, and understanding of the doctrines of grace remain a serious concern within the church. Given the state of theology within the church, the Canons of Dort is as relevant and needed today by many Christians as it was in the seventeenth century. The oath of the members of the synod stated: I promise before God, in whom I believe, and whom I worship, as being present in this place, and as being the searcher of all hearts, that during the course of the proceedings of this Synod, which will examine and decide, not only the five points, and all the differences resulting from them, but also any other doctrine, I will use no human writing, but only the word of God, which is an infallible rule of faith. And during all these discussions, I will only aim at the glory of God, the peace of the church, and especially the preservation of the purity of doctrine. So help me, my Savior, Jesus Christ. I beseech him to assist me by his Holy Spirit.9

The Canons as Missional Given the importance of the Canons of Dort, it is easy to forget that the work of the synod involved more than the canons and answering the Remonstrants. Many other topics were covered during the Synod, usually referred to as the Pro-Acta and Post-Acta of the Synod. The Pro-Acta were decisions made while

9 Samuel Miller, “Introductory Essay,” 37.

223

224

Joel E. Kim

the synod waited for the arrival of the Remonstrants. The Post-Acta were synodical decisions made after the completion of the canons and departure of the international delegates. After all, it was a working synod. The synod commissioned the first Dutch translation of the Bible from the original. The synod discussed the proper ways of catechizing and ordering catechesis—at home, church, and school, all based on the Heidelberg Catechism. The synod discussed the church order and established a pattern to be followed by the churches. The synod also discussed Sabbath-keeping, providing six articles for the churches to apply. The synod approved a series of articles to regulate Dutch academies and universities. Finally, the synod discussed the propriety of baptizing babies of non-Christian servants and slaves in the Dutch East Indies. This caused a considerable division among the delegates, though they ultimately decided that children born of non-Christian slaves or servants should be catechized and only baptized after they came to faith. This last question is an interesting one because it indicates the uniqueness of the Synod of Dort. Its concern and focus were not just the United Provinces or even Europe, but the global church. This points to a unique contribution of the Synod of Dort; it is a missionary document. It probably comes as a surprise that a Reformed confessional document has missionary value at all. After all, missions is an area most often cited as a weakness of Reformed theology. That the Reformers were indifferent to unbelievers or that the theology of the Reformers makes them inattentive to missions and evangelism have been accepted as indisputable or self-evident. William Estep, a Reformation historian, called Calvinism “logically anti-missionary.”10 Norman Geisler, a well-known evangelical apologist, stated that some “extremists” militate “against enthusiasm for missions and evangelism.”11 This is hardly new. Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), a Roman Catholic polemicist at the time of the Reformation, argued that one of the marks of a true church was its continuity with the missionary passion of the apostles. He states: “In this one century the Catholics have converted many thousands of heathens in the new world. Every year a certain number of Jews are converted and baptized at Rome by Catholics who adhere in loyalty to the Bishop of Rome…. The Lutherans compare themselves to the apostles and the evangelists; yet though they have among them a very large number of Jews, and in Poland and Hungary have the Turks as their near neighbors, they have hardly converted so much as a handful.”12 10 William Estep, “Calvinizing Southern Baptists,” Texas Baptist Standard, March 26, 1997. 11 Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1999), 136. 12 Robert Bellarmine, Controversiae, book 4, as quoted in Stephen Neill, A History of Christian Missions (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, U.K.: Penguin, 1964), 221.

The Relevance of Dort for Today

However, such criticisms were not the opinion of all students of the Reformation. W. Stanford Reid concluded his brief article, “Calvin’s Geneva: A Missionary Centre,” with these words: Thus, as we look back over the period from 1541 to 1564, we must recognise that Jean Calvin was the person who was the stimulus and the director of the missionary endeavours of the Genevan church. He saw the possibilities of spreading the Reformation throughout Europe and he did his utmost to make them an actuality. In so doing he accomplished much and as we look at the Reformed church family since his day, we must realise that the whole concept of mission which has now taken the Gospel to the ends of the earth, was basic to both his theology and to his practice. Under his direction Geneva became truly a Christian missionary centre.13

This was John Calvin putting into practice what he wrote about throughout his writings, including the preface to his Institutes of Christian Religion in which he stated his conviction that God the Father has appointed Christ to “rule from sea to sea, and from the rivers even to the ends of the earth.”14 Elsie McKee rightly highlighted this global consciousness in Calvin’s writings, concluding that a basic element in Calvin’s thought was “the fact that the whole world belongs to the Kingdom of Christ and has come under his redemption and that the triumph of Christ will soon be manifest everywhere among all nations.”15 Several factors made this global consciousness about the global church even more present when the delegates to the Synod of Dort gathered in 1618. First was the birth of the United Provinces. In the midst of the Eighty Years’ War, the Union of Utrecht in 1579 created the United Provinces, bringing together the northern provinces and creating what now has become the Netherlands. Not only did the new nation gain independence, but also developed into a successful sea-going commercial nation with the creation of United East India Company in 1602 and the West India Company in 1621. No longer were the maritime powers Spain and Portugal; now they were England and the Netherlands. By the time of the synod, the Protestants of Western Europe had begun making contact with distant peoples, and this was reflected in the canons. 13 W. Stanford Reid, “Calvin’s Geneva: A Missionary Centre,” RTR 42, no. 3 (Sept. 1983): 73. For a recent treatment of the missions activity of John Calvin and Geneva, see Kenneth J. Stewart, “Calvinism and Missions: The Contested Relationships Revisited,” Themelios 34, no. 1 (2009): 63–78. 14 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christians Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1:12. 15 Elsie McKee, “Calvin and Praying for ‘All People Who Dwell on Earth,’” Interpretation, (April 2009): 130.

225

226

Joel E. Kim

Second, the composition of the synod made global consciousness inevitable. One should remember that this was an international synod, with delegates from multiple countries and written with an international audience in mind. Invitations were sent out to the countries where Reformed Churches existed—to the civil governments, if the countries were Reformed, and to the churches, if not. Many sent their representatives, although the French representatives were unable to attend, prevented by their King. Third, the ever-expanding reach of the European nations made necessary discussions that required thoughtfulness in engaging global issues. This can be seen in the teaching and writings of Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676). He served for decades as a pastor until he was appointed to teach Semitic languages and theology at the University of Utrecht in 1634, a position he held until his death. Throughout his life, he wrote on missions and later was recognized as a pivotal figure in Protestant missions during the seventeenth century. He was not only an active member of the Synod, but he also drafted the text of the succinct advice to the Synod from the delegates of South Holland regarding the baptism of children born to unbelieving servants and slaves. Such realities provide context for the unique contributions of the Canons of Dort (CD). The first head of doctrine begins the response to the Remonstrance by explicating divine election and reprobation, wading through the difficult topic of divine decrees. However, the Canon addresses this difficult theological topic by highlighting the love of God, using the language of John 3:16 (CD I, 2): “But this is how God showed his love: he sent his only begotten Son into the world, so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”16 In order that this love would be proclaimed and believed, God acts by sending “proclaimers”: “In order that people may be brought to faith, God mercifully sends proclaimers of this very joyful message to the people he wishes and at the time he wishes. By this ministry people are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified” (I, 3). Throughout the canons, God is the main actor in salvation. He not only saves, but he also acts in history so that the gospel may be proclaimed and those whom he had chosen would come to faith. Though highlighting the reality that God sends proclaimers, the synod concluded that God does not assume inaction from the rest of his people. God clearly is working through human agents, and the missionary text of Romans 10 is cited in the Article: For “how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without someone preaching? And how shall they preach unless they have been sent?” Moreover, his people are to pray. Head III/IV of the Canons explains in great detail the depth of human sinfulness, the 16 “The Canons of Dordt,” in The Trinity Psalter Hymnal (Willow Grove, Pa.: Trinity Psalter Hymnal Joint Venture, 2018), 897.

The Relevance of Dort for Today

inability of man to save himself, and the absolute necessity of the grace of God in salvation. In article 6, this saving power of the gospel is explained: “What, therefore, neither the light of nature nor the law can do, God accomplishes by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the word or the ministry of reconciliation. This is the gospel about the Messiah, through which it has pleased God to save believers, in both the Old and the New Testament” (III/IV, 6). How, then, does one respond to this grace of God proclaimed in the gospel? Believers owe “eternal thanks to God alone,” uphold “those who outwardly profess their faith and better their lives,” and then pray. In particular, believers in grateful response ought to pray for those who do not yet believe: “But for others who have not yet been called, we are to pray to the God who calls things that do not exist as though they did. In no way, however, are Christians to pride ourselves as better than they, as though we had distinguished ourselves from them” (III/IV, 15). Perhaps the clearest missional statement is found in the second head of doctrine. In the midst of the Canon’s explanation of the scope of Christ’s atonement, it turns its attention to the necessity of preaching the gospel to all. In a remarkable statement that one scholar called “a kind of Magna Charta for missions,”17 article 5 explains: “Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. The promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel” (II, 5, emphasis added). This statement does not merely grant permission nor does it simply give suggestion to the churches, but it states that churches must announce and declare the gospel. Though biblical in its emphasis and language, the global and inclusive language of “without differentiation or discrimination” remains surprising given the historical period of the Synod. Nor is this an isolated expression. Only three articles later, the scope of God’s saving intentions in Christ Jesus is further explained: “In other words, it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father” (II, 8, emphasis added). That “every people, tribe, nation, and language” should experience the salvation of God has always been God’s intention, according to the Canons:

17 Anthony A. Hoekema, “The Missionary Focus of the Canons of Dort,” CTJ 7 (November, 1972): 214.

227

228

Joel E. Kim

In the Old Testament, God revealed this secret of his will to a small number; in the New Testament (now without any distinction between peoples) he discloses it to a large number. The reason for the difference must not be ascribed to the greater worth of one nation over another, or to a better use of the light of nature, but to the free good pleasure and undeserved love of God. Therefore, those who receive so much grace, beyond and in spite of all they deserve, ought to acknowledge it with humble and thankful hearts; on the other hand, with the apostle they ought to adore (but certainly not inquisitively search into) the severity and justice of God’s judgments on the others, who do not receive his grace. (III/IV, 7)

This global outlook can be framed another way. From the beginning, the canons deny that God’s gracious election is in any way dependent upon the goodness of the believer, as the first head of doctrine emphasizes that “the cause of this undeserved election is exclusively the good pleasure of God” (CD I, 10). This means that the chosen “were neither better nor more deserving than the others” (I, 7). This has implications for missions and the global outlook of the church. If God chose “by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will,” then it follows that no nation or people have any exclusive claim upon the gospel, contrary to those “who teach that the cause for God’s sending the gospel to one people rather than to another is not merely and solely God’s good pleasure, but rather that one people is better and worthier than the other to whom the gospel is not communicated” (I, rej. 9). The gospel must be proclaimed to all peoples “without discrimination and differentiation.” Finally, God who sends, and sends to all, is also the one who gives assurance of the effectiveness of missions: This plan, arising out of God’s eternal love for his chosen ones, from the beginning of the world to the present time has been powerfully carried out and will also be carried out in the future, the gates of hell seeking vainly to prevail against it. As a result the chosen are gathered into one, all in their own time, and there is always a church of believers founded on Christ’s blood, a church which steadfastly loves, persistently worships, and—here and in all eternity—praises him as her Savior who laid down his life for her on the cross, as a bridegroom for his bride. (II, 9)

Given the unusual attention given not only to the proclamation of the gospel but its declaration throughout the world, there is warrant to Anthony Hoekema’s conclusion that “the main focus of the Canons is on the Missio Dei (the mission of God): God’s redemption of the cosmos through the saving work of Jesus

The Relevance of Dort for Today

Christ, applied to the hearts of his people by the Holy Spirit.”18 For a document known mostly for the precision and polemics of its theology, the Canons of Dort is remarkably pastoral, not simply drawing the attention of the readers to God’s grace in salvation, but also highlighting the heart of God in saving, a reminder of the global view of God’s salvation and importance of the global church. The Canons of Dort are, therefore, not only modern and relevant, but also missional, evangelistic in its orientation and perspective. The Canons as Doxological The word “doxology” may bring to mind hymn-singing for many of us, but it simply means “word of glory.” In his letters, Paul often pauses in his writing to offer up a short praise to God (cf. Gal. 1:4–5; Eph. 3:20–21; Phil. 4:20; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:14–16; 2 Tim. 4:18). The letter to the Romans is no exception. Paul pens these words at the end of Romans 11: “‘For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor?’ ‘Or who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him?’ For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen” (vv. 34–36). This passage is one of four places in Romans where Paul stops his exposition to offer up praise to God (see Rom 1:25; 9:5; 16:25–27). Reflecting on these words, J. R. W. Stott states: It is of great importance to note from Romans 1–11 that theology (our belief about God) and doxology (our worship of God) should never be separated. On the one hand, there can be no doxology without theology. It is not possible to worship an unknown god. All true worship is a response to the self-revelation of God in Christ and Scripture, and arises from our reflection on who he is and what he has done…. Worship without theology is bound to degenerate into idolatry. On the other hand, there should be no theology without doxology. There is something fundamentally flawed about a purely academic interest in God. God is not an appropriate object for cool, critical, detached, scientific observation and evaluation. No, the true knowledge of God will always lead to worship, as it did Paul. As Bishop Handley Moule said at the end of the last century, we must ‘beware equally of undevotional theology and of an untheological devotion.’”19

18 Hoekema, “The Missionary Focus of the Canons of Dordt,” 209–20. 19 John R. W. Stott, Romans: God’s Good News for the World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994), 311–12.

229

230

Joel E. Kim

This is true of the canons. The Canons of Dort teach theology that ultimately sings, leading to worship and adoration. As the canons faithfully summarize and teach the Bible, they force all of us to contemplate on our guilt, his grace, and our gratitude. In the fifth and final head of doctrine, the canons focus on the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and the lives of believers on this side of glory. Despite God’s grace which frees one from the dominion of sin, believers are not entirely free from sin as the Heidelberg Catechism states so well (Q. 114): “But can those converted to God keep these commandments perfectly? No. In this life, even the holiest have only a small beginning of this obedience. Nevertheless, with all seriousness of purpose, they do begin to live according to all, not only some, of God’s commandments.” Believers might be weak, “but God is faithful,” according to article 2, “mercifully strengthening them in the grace once conferred on them and powerfully preserving them in it to the end.” Therefore, one can be certain about the perseverance of the saints, a topic so important to the Canons of Dort: So it is not by their own merits or strength but by God’s undeserved mercy that they neither forfeit faith and grace totally nor remain in their downfalls to the end and are lost. With respect to themselves this not only easily could happen, but also undoubtedly would happen; but with respect to God it cannot possibly happen, since his plan cannot be changed, his promise cannot fail, the calling according to his purpose cannot be revoked, the merit of Christ as well as his interceding and preserving cannot be nullified, and the sealing of the Holy Spirit can neither be invalidated nor wiped out. (V, 8)

Then, what should be the believer’s response to this teaching? First, Christians should pursue godliness: “This assurance of perseverance, however, so far from making true believers proud and carnally self-assured, is rather the true root of humility, of childlike respect, of genuine godliness, of endurance in every conflict, of fervent prayers, of steadfastness in cross-bearing and in confessing the truth, and of well-founded joy in God. Reflecting on this benefit provides an incentive to a serious and continual practice of thanksgiving and good works, as is evident from the testimonies of Scripture and the examples of the saints” (V, 12). Second, this teaching should lead believers to praise: “This teaching…is something which the flesh does not understand, Satan hates, the world ridicules, the ignorant and the hypocrites abuse, and the spirits of error attack. The bride of Christ, on the other hand, has always loved this teaching very tenderly and defended it steadfastly as a priceless treasure; and God, against whom no plan

The Relevance of Dort for Today

can avail and no strength can prevail, will ensure that she will continue to do this. To this God alone, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be honor and glory forever, Amen” (V, 15). As dissonant as this sounds, sound theology should lead the hearers to praise, as the teachings of Canons of Dort do. This doxological nature of theology is shared by the Westminster Confession of Faith when it also discusses the topic of divine election. It concludes: “The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience there unto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel” (WCF 3.8, emphasis added). Perhaps not surprisingly, the synod concluded on May 29, 1619, with worship and praise. After the completion of their work, the delegates gathered at a local church to end the synod with worship, with Balthasar Lydius preaching from Isaiah 12:1–3. Isaiah declared, “O Lord, I will praise You; though You were angry with me, Your anger is turned away, and You comfort me. Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; ‘For Yah, the Lord, is my strength and song; He also has become my salvation.’ Therefore with joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.” After months of difficult discussions that resulted in unanimous approval of a document that has served the church so well, what did the delegates have to say? “Give thanks to the Lord.” After describing the grace of God that is greater than his own sins and the sins of the nation, what did Isaiah have to say? “Give thanks to the Lord.” Conclusion The Synod of Dort is the church at work as it pursues purity of theology. To put it another way, the synod represents the study of theology for the sake of the church. The Canons of Dort that it produced did not exhibit the theological comprehensiveness of the Belgic Confession and the personal appeal of the Heidelberg Catechism, but it nevertheless was no less ecclesiastical or pastoral. And it remains as relevant for the health and flourishing of the church today as it was for the Reformed churches of the seventeenth century.

231

Editors and Contributors Editors Joel R. Beeke is president and professor of systematic theology and homiletics at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, a pastor of the Heritage Reformed Congregation in Grand Rapids, Michigan, co-editor of Puritan Reformed Journal and editor of Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth, and editorial director of Reformation Heritage Books. He has written and co-authored one hundred books (most recently, Reformed Systematic Theology, Reformed Preaching: Preaching God’s Word from the Heart of the Preacher to the Heart of His People, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life, Knowing and Growing in Assurance of Faith, and Debated Issues in Sovereign Predestination), edited another one hundred books, and contributed 2,500 articles to Reformed books, journals, periodicals, and encyclopedias. His PhD is in Reformation and Post-Reformation theology from Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia). Martin I. Klauber is an Affiliate Professor of Church History at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He holds the PhD from the University of WisconsinMadison where he studied under Robert M. Kingdon. He is the author of Between Reformed Scholasticism and Pan-Protestantism: Jean-Alphonse Turretin (1671-1737) and Enlightened Orthodoxy at the Academy of Geneva (Susquehanna University Press, 1994). He has also edited several books on Reformed thought in the post-Reformation period including The Theology of the French Reformed Churches: From Henry IV to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (editor and contributor) (Reformation Heritage Books, 2014). He has published numerous essays in academic journals. Contributors

Daniel Borvan (D. Phil. cand., Oxford University) is pastor of Grace United Reformed Church in Torrance, California and co-editor of the Explorations in Reformed Confessional Theology Series for Reformation Heritage Books. R. Scott Clark (D. Phil., Oxford University) is Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California, a minister in the Escondido United Reformed Church, and co-editor of the Classic Reformed

234

Editors and Contributors

Theology series. He is the author of several books including Recovering the Reformed Confession (P & R Publishing, 2008). W. Robert Godfrey is a Ligonier Ministry Teaching Fellow and President Emeritus and Professor of Church History at Westminster Seminary California. He is the author of several books including the recent Saving the Reformation: The Pastoral Theology of the Canons of Dort (Reformation Trust Publishing, 2019) and John Calvin: Pilgrim and Pastor (Crossway, 2009). David W. Hall (PhD, Whitefield Theological Seminary) is the Sr. Pastor of Midway Presbyterian Church, outside of Atlanta, Georgia, and was the Executive Director of Calvin500. He is the author or editor of over forty books including The Genevan Reformation and the American Founding (Lexington Books, 2003). Matthew Harding is the lead pastor for the Well Community Church in a suburb of Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas. Matthew earned his PhD in Historical Theology from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth and a DMin from New Orleans Seminary. Michael S. Horton (PhD, University of Coventry and Wycliffe Hall, Oxford) is the J. Gresham Machen Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary California and associate minister at Christ United Reformed Church (Santee, California). He is the author of more than twenty books, including the acclaimed The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims One the Way (Zondervan, 2011); he also co-hosts The White Horse Inn (an international radio broadcast), and is editor of Modern Reformation magazine. Joel E. Kim (ThM, Calvin Theological Seminary) is President and Assistant Professor of New Testament at Westminster Seminary California in Escondido, California, a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America, co-editor of Always Reformed (2012) and author of Romans: Nothing but Grace (Lexham Press, 2017).   David B. McWilliams (PhD, University of Wales) is the Senior Minister of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Lakeland, Florida. He formerly served on the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary as Associate Professor of Systematic Theology.  He has published theological articles and New Testament commentaries.

Editors and Contributors

Greg Salazar is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. He completed his PhD from Cambridge University in 2018. He recently co-edited volume 6 of The Works of William Perkins and William Perkins, Architect of Puritanism, and has published various academic and ecclesiastical articles. He currently serves as Assistant Editor for the Studies in Puritanism Journal, and Associate Editor for the Puritan Reformed Journal. Donald Sinnema (PhD, University of Toronto) is Professor of Theology at Trinity Christian College in Illinois and has published extensively on the Synod of Dort. He is one of the editors of the documents of the Synod of Dort: Acta Et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618–1619): A Project of the Johannes a Lasco Bibliothek, Emden, which is being published by Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, commencing in 2017. Charles Kelly Telfer (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is Professor of Biblical Languages at Westminster Seminary California and a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America. Prior to joining the faculty of WSC in 2011, he served as pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church (OPC) in the Chicago area for nine years. He is the author of Wrestling with Isaiah: The Exegetical Methodology of Campegius Vitringa (1659-1722) (Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2016) and the translator of Vitringa’s The Spiritual Life (Reformation Heritage Books, 2018). R.T. (Dolf) te Velde (PhD, Theological University Kampen) is associate professor of Systematic Theology at Theological University Kampen and associate professor of Historical Theology at Evangelische Theologische Faculteit Leuven. He is the volume-editor of Synopsis of a Purer Theology, vol. 1 (Brill, 2014) and the author of several books and articles on historical and systematic aspects of Reformed theology.

235