The following is a transcript from the PCA trial proceedings in which Dr Robert Letham was asked a series of questions. The overall subject matter of the trial is not relevant to our interests here. What is of interest, however, are Letham’s modified statements regarding the orthodoxy of hypothetical universalism in relation to the Westminster Confession and Assembly debates.¹

For each section, a question is asked of Letham, to which he answers. His answers are prefaced with an “A.”

5 Q: One of the reasons we’ve asked you to testify, Dr. Letham, is your expertise
6 on the Westminster Assembly and you’ve written that English Calvinism was a
7 heterogeneous creature. You’ve used the term generic Calvinism a few times in your book.
8 What do you mean by that and what do you mean by saying “the Assembly within–within
8 limits was inclusive rather than exclusive?

10 A: Yeah, well, the term generic Calvinism is not mine but comes from B. B.
11 Warfield who described the Assembly as representing a generic Calvinism in his book
1 (inaudible) the Westminster Assembly and Its Work. And I think Warfield was correct. For
13 example, there’s a number of reasons for saying that. Firstly, the aim of the Westminster
14 Assembly originally, of course, was to defend the doctrine of the Church of England from all
15 false calumnies and dispersions. But after a few months, the civil war, which was raging,
16 wasn’t going too well and so Parliament turned to the Scots for help. And as a pri–, the
17 price for this was the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant. And from then on the
18 task of the Assembly began to be, to unite the church and the three kingdoms, that is
19 England and Wales, which is one, Scotland and Ireland. So its aim was to unite the Church
20 within the parameters of reformed theology. And so that, that–that whole activity of the
21 assembly was under the direction, the supervision of Parliament. And Parliament’s interest
22 was in preserving the unity of the kingdom, the three kingdoms. That in turn led to a–a
23 concern to accommodate various parts of the reformed community. Second, there’s the
1 question of hypothetical universalism. Now, some have identified this with Amyraldianism.
2 It’s not quite accurate. Amyraut, the French reformed theologian whose books were
3 actually read by many members of the assembly during its se–sessions, Amyraut argued
4 that Christ died on the cross with the intention of atoning for all, or making universal
5 atonement. But God made a decree to save his elect and to apply that salvation by the Holy
6 Spirit. So it’s an internal conflict, you might say, between the father and the son and the
7 decrees of God.² Now, hypothetical³ universalism in its English context was rather
8 different. It owed its, one of its leading expositions to John Davenant, who was a member of
9 the British delegation at the Synod of Dort. John Preston was another advocate and in on
10 the floor of the Assembly it came to voice (inaudible) Edmund Calamy and at least four
11 others. Now this idea was that there was one decree, a decree, which on the one hand was
12 conditional and to all so that Christ was offered to all people for an salvation promise to all
13 people on condition that they believed. But there was another aspect to that decree that
14 God’s–also decreed absolutely to save his elect. To grant the Holy Spirit to them and to
15 give them faith. Now there was a quite a lengthy debate on this in–August 1645;
16 caused significant controversy. But and–and the Westminster Assembly of course did
17 not, we may say, teach hypothetical universalism of course as a clear doctrine of definite
18 atonement, perseverance of the saints and so on and so forth. But the hypothetical
19 Calvinists, hypothetical universalists, should I say, continue to play an active part in the
20 Assembly and the Confession itself was worded in such a way that they could accept it in
21 good conscience and interpret its–its–its statements without, without prejudice. Chapter
22 7, section 3 of the Confession, man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that
23 covenant, the covenant of works, the Lord was pleased to make a second commonly called
1 the covenant of grace whereby, note this, he freely offers unto sinners life and salvation
2 by Jesus Christ requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved. So, there you have
3 the conditional promise of the gospel. And promising to give onto all those that who are
4 ordained onto eternal life his Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe. Now, a
5 hypothetical universalist could accept that in good conscience. I’m not saying, mark you,
6 that the Westminster Assembly teaches hypothetical universalism. But because it was, its
7 task was to provide the basis for unity in the three kingdoms, it was careful to word its
8 statements in a way which allowed for different views to be accommodated within the
9 broad consensus of reformed theology, within what Warfield calls generic Calvinism.

Transcript of Proceedings June 3-4, 2011 (Transcribed from an Audio recording) PCA v. Leithart. 352-355. Available from http://pnwp.org/images/resources/final-leithart-trial-transcript.pdf; Internet; accessed 15 October 2011.

* * * * * *

Read the rest of this entry »

Moore:

1)

6.4.2 The Westminster Confession

Finding modified or intentionally ambiguous codification in the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) is altogether more difficult, but, just as a significant body of hypothetical universalists successfully influenced the final wording at Dordt, so too at the Westminster Assembly do we meet with a vocal minority who were able to restrain the final codification sufficiently for there to be some significant ambiguity at crucial places. This may come as a surprise to many, because it is quite clear that the Westminster Standards not only do not teach English Hypothetical Universalism or allow it to be deduced or expounded by logical deduction from various propositional statements made, but the whole exegetical approach and systematic structures of the finally codified Westminster theology are inimical to it.¹⁰³ But that should not take away from the fact that the Westminster Assembly was far from unanimous on the issue of the extent of the atonement, and the vocal and influential English Hypothetical Universalist minority pushed hard so as not to be needless ly excluded from orthodoxy at any crucial point.

And neither was the Assembly unwilling to comply. There is no evidence to suggest that the Assembly excluded views unnecessarily just because it could. Indeed, to have done so would have been strategically disastrous for this parliamentary committee, as well as against the stated will of some of its leading divines. For example, on the Fast Day of 8 October, 1645, days before the extent of the atonement was debated at the Westminster Assembly, Edward Reynolds preached a sermon to the Assembly in which he exhorted the divines to self-denial in relation to the Assembly, including in the matter of expressing their “judgments and opinions” when these threatened “to hinder the peace of the church.” Reynolds feared that a “divided ministry” would only serve as “an advantage for the common enemy.¹⁰⁴ By ‘common enemy’ Reynolds would have included Papists, Anabaptists, Arminians and the like, but not– despite his own particular redemptionist convictions–English Hypothetical Universalists. The printed edition of this sermon “Published by Authority” indicates that what Reynolds had in mind by judgments and opinions that needed to be suppressed for the sake of unity were those that were “not in themselves matters of faith and morall duty” but rather “matters meerly problematicall, and of private perswasion, wherein godly men may be differently minded, without breach of love, or hazard of salvation.”¹⁰⁵ Reynolds’ spirit here is not out of keeping with the fact that although the Westminster Confession goes way beyond Dordt’s calculated ambiguity in the direction of a much more defensive particularism, it too also falls short of explicitly proscribing English Hypothetical Universalism where, in theory, it could have done so.

An exhaustive investigation of this complicated matter is beyond the scope of this essay, but one example of this falling short would arguably be Chapter 3 of the Confession concerning “Gods eternall Decree”. This chapter was debated at length during the Assembly in the autumn of 1645, following the report of the first Committee concerning predestination on Friday, 17 October. It is significant, given his irenicism above, that Reynolds himself was in charge of this committee.¹⁰⁶ A surviving comment from Scots Commissioner George Gillespie on the opening session of the debate on the following Monday also gives an indication of the spirit in which its predestinarian statements were drawn up. Gillespie advocated studied ambiguity in the confession at this point “soe every one may injoy his owne sence.”‘¹⁰⁷ Two days later, as the debate continued, the boundaries of Gillespie’s commitment to studied ambiguity were to be put to the test as the debate moved towards the relationship between the decree of election and the redemption of Christ. Gillespie, along with Samuel Rutherford, John Lightfoot, Thomas Goodwin, Anthony Burgess and various other particular redemptionists, locked horns with the English Hypothetical Universalists Edmund Calamy, Lazarus Seaman, Stephen Marshall and Richard Vines for extensive debates on whether “Christ did intend to Redeeme the elect only.”¹⁰⁸ The extent of the atonement was debated at length for the rest of the week and rolled on into a second week of debates, with the “debate about Redemption” still appearing in the Minutes as late as 31 October. By this stage some level of agreement appears to have been reached, for discussion then proceeded to the doctrine of reprobation. But just what was this agreement, and to what extent could ‘everyone enjoy their own sense’?

WCF 3.6 reads:

Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season, arc justified , adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified and saved, but the Elect only.”¹⁰⁹

Read the rest of this entry »

Moore:

6.4.1 The Canons of Dordt

In the case of the Canons of Dordt, modifications deriving from a substantial minority influence are exactly what we find.⁹² It might at first be thought out of place in an essay on diversity in the British Reformed tradition to trespass into a consideration of the position on this controversy taken by the Synod of Dordt. That would doubtless have been the case had it not been for the fact that a highly significant part of this minority influence at the Synod came from the British Delegation, and the most influential among its five delegates was none other than John Davenant.⁹³ Like the Synod itself, the British Delegation was by no means unanimous on the extent of the atonement, and the influence of particular redemptionist impulses was felt, initially at least, from three delegates within the British ranks.⁹⁴ Tales of the ‘conversion’ of British delegates from particularism to hypothetical universalism under the influence of Davenant and  the other convinced hypothetical universalist delegate Samuel Ward (1572-1643) are not implausible, but hard to verify. But certainly ground was conceded to Davenant and Ward either reluctantly and for tactical reasons, or otherwise.⁹⁵ Due to the towering influence of Davenant and his close friend Ward, it was the position of English Hypothetical Universalism that was brought to bear powerfully upon the deliberations and final formulations of the Synod to the extent that the British Delegation were able to subscribe to the resulting Canons shortly before returning to England.⁹⁶

In subscribing to the Canons, the British Delegation affirmed the following in Article 2.8: “voluit Deus, ut Christus per sanguinem crucis (quo novum foedus confirmavit) ex omni populo, tribu, gente, et lingua, eos omnes et solos, qui ab aetemo ad salutem electi, et a Patre ipsi dati sunt, efficaciter redimeret.”⁹⁷ But how exactly could a theologian such as John Davenant subscribe to this? At first glance the terms efficaciter (‘effectually’ or ‘efficaciously’) and eos solos (‘those only’) appear to shut up the would-be subscriber to a particularist understanding of the death of Christ, as if Christ died to save “only” the elect. This explains why in the twentieth century this second Article of the Canons was to form the ‘L’ for ‘Limited Atonement’ in the popular ‘T.U.L.I.P.’ acronym for the so-called ‘Five Points of Calvinism’.⁹⁸ But ironically it is the inclusion of the word efficaciter that gives the hypothetical universalist room for his position. Had this word been omitted, the Canons would be teaching that Christ’s redemptive work in all respects was “only” for the elect But as it stands, what the Canons teach here is that Christ’s effectual redemptive work was “only” for the elect. This leaves a door open–even if it is only a back door–for any subscriber to hold privately to an ineffectual redemptive work for the nonelect, or, to put it differently, Christ dying for the non-elect sufficiently but not efficiently–precisely what a hypothetical universalist usage of the Lombardian formula entailed.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Auburn Declaration:

[The Auburn Declaration, so called from the place of its adoption, belongs to the history of American Presbyterianism, and although it never aspired to the dignity of an authoritative Confession of Faith, it may claim a place here for its intrinsic value and importance before and after the disruption. It originated during the conflict which preceded the division of the Presbyterian Church into Old and New School, A.D.1837, and was prepared by the Rev. Baxter Dickinson, D.D. (d.1876). It had been charged, on one side, that sixteen errors, involving considerable departures from true Calvinism and the Westminster standards, had become current in that Church. (They are printed in the Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review for 1876, pp.7, 8.) In answer to this charge, the New School party were led to embody their belief on these points in a corresponding series of 'True Doctrines,' which were incorporated in their Protest, as presented to the General Assembly of 1837. These doctrinal statements were subsequently considered and adopted by an important representative convention at Auburn, New York, Aug., 1837, as expressing their matured views, and those of the churches and ministry represented by them, on the several topics involved. The Declaration thus adopted became, not indeed a creed, but an authoritative explanation of the interpretation given to the Westminster Symbols by the leading minds in the New School Church, as organized in 1838. It was in 1868 indorsed by the General Assembly (O. S.) as containing 'all the fundamentals of the Calvinistic Creed,' and this indorsement was one among the most effectual steps in bringing about the reunion of the two Churches in 1870. The document is rather a disavowal of imputed error than an exposition of revealed truth, and must be understood from the anthropological and soteriological controversies of that period of division now happily gone by.

Both the Errors and the True Doctrines may be found in the Minutes of the Assembly for 1837; also, in the New Digest, pp.227-230. See also Art. on The Auburn Declaration by Prof. E. D. Morris, D.D., of Lane Seminary, in the Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review, Jan.1876, pp.5-40.

The original document is deposited in the library of Lane Theol. Sem., Cincinnati, O. The text here given is an accurate copy from it, and was kindly furnished for this work by the Rev. E. D. Morris, D.D. The headings in brackets have been supplied by the editor.]

[Permission of Sin.]

1. God permitted the introduction of sin, not because he was unable to prevent it consistently with the moral freedom of his creatures, but for wise and benevolent reasons which he has not revealed.

[Election.]

2. Election to eternal life is not founded on a foresight of faith and obedience, but is a sovereign act of God’s mercy, whereby, according to the counsel of his own will, he has chosen some to salvation: ‘yet so as thereby neither is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established;’ nor does this gracious purpose ever take effect independently of faith and a holy life.

[Fall of Adam.]

3. By a divine constitution Adam was so the head and representative of the race that, as a consequence of his transgression, all mankind became morally corrupt, and liable to death, temporal and eternal.

[Hereditary Sin.]

4. Adam was created in the image of God, ‘endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness.’ Infants come into the world not only destitute of these, but with a nature inclined to evil, and only evil.

Read the rest of this entry »