Perkins:

And this much for the efficacy and greatness of Christ’s death: Now as concerning grace: I say, that this is diversely distinguished. For first, it is either restraining or renewing. The restraining grace is that, whereby the inbred corruption of the heart, is not thereby utterly diminished and taken away, but in some restrained more, in some less, that it break not violently forth into action: and it is given only for a testimony unto man, and to preserve society: and for this kind of grace is general, that is, belonging to all and every man, amongst whom some do exceed othersome in the gifts of civil virtues: and there is no man, in whom God does not more or less restrain his natural corruption. Now renewing or Christian grace (as ancient writers do usually call it) is that whereby a man has power given to believe and repent, both in respect of will, and power: and it is universal in respect of those who believe.

Secondly, Grace is either natural, or supernatural: as Augustine himself teaches. Natural grace is that, which is bestowed on man together with nature: and this is either of nature perfect or corrupt. Perfect, as the image of God, or righteousness bestowed on Adam in his creation. This grace belongs generally unto all because we all were in Adam: and whosoever he received that was good, he received it both for himself and his posterity. The grace of nature corrupted is a natural enlightening (whereof John speaks: ‘He enlightens every man that comes into the world [Joh. 1:9]), yea and every natural gift. And these gifts truly by that order which God has made in nature, are due and belonging unto nature. But that Grace which is supernatural, is not due unto nature, especially unto nature corrupted, but is bestowed by special grace, and therefore is special. This the ancient writers affirm. Augustine says: “Nature is common to all, but not grace,” and he acknowledges a twofold grace: namely that common grace of nature, whereby we are made men: and Christian grace, whereby in Christ we are again born new men.

William Perkins, A Christian and Plaine Treatise of the Manner and Order of Predestination, and of the Largenes of Gods Grace (At London: Printed for William Welby, and Martin Clarke, 1606), 106-110. [Some spelling modernized; italics original; marginal reference cited inline; and underlining mine.]

Perkins:

1) The exhibiting of the Mediator is that, whereby the Son of God being born a man in the fulness of time, does pay the price of redemption to God for the sins of men. The virtue and efficacy of this price being paid, in respect of merit and operation is infinite, but yet it must be distinguished, for it is either potential or actual. The potential efficacy is, whereby the price is in itself sufficient to redeem every one without exception from his sins, albeit there were a thousand worlds of men. But if we consider that actual efficacy, the price is paid in the counsel of God, and as touching the event, only for those which are elect and predestinated. For the Son does not sacrifice for those, for whom he does not pray: because to make intercession and to sacrifice are conjoined: but he prays only for the elect and for believes, Joh. 17:9, and by praying he offers himself to his Father, vers. 19. William Perkins, “A Christian and Plaine Treatise of the Manner and Order of Predestination, and of the Largenes of Gods Grace,” in The Works of that Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ in the Universitie of Cambridge (Printed at London by Iohn Legatt, Printer to the Univeritie of Cambrdge, 1616), 2: 609[b]. [Some spelling modernized.]

2) Whereas Paul says, that all men with all that proceeds from them, is shut under sin, he teaches that all actions of men unregenerate are sins. “The wisdom of the flesh,” that is, the wisest cogitations, counsels, inclinations of the flesh, “are enemies with God,” Rom. 8:5, “To the unclean all things are unclean,” Tit. 1:15, “An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit,” Matt. 7. It may be objected, that natural men may do the works of the moral law, as to give alms, and such like, Rom. 2:14. Answ. Sins to be two sorts. One is, when anything is done flat against the commandment of God. The second is, when the act or work is done which the law prescribes, yet not in the same manner which the law prescribes, in faith, in obedience to the glory of God. In this second regard moral works performed by natural men, are sins indeed. Hence it follows, that liberty of will in the doing of that which is truly good, is lost by the fall of Adam: and that man cannot by the strength of natural will, helped by grace, apply himself to the calling of God.

Whereas Paul says, that “the promise is given to believers,” it is manifest, that the promise is not universal in respect of all mankind, but only indefinite and universal in respect of believers. Wherefore their doctrine is not sound, that teach the redemption wrought by Christ, to be as general as the sin wrought by Adam. Indeed, if we regard the value of the sufficiency of the death of Christ, it is so: but if we respect the communication and donation of this benefit, it is not. For though all be shut under sin, yet the promise is only given “to them that believe.” It is objected, that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself,” 2 Cor. 5:19. Answ. The text in hand shows that by “the world,” we are to understand all believers through the whole world. And whereas Paul says, “God shut up all under unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all,” Rom. 11:32. His meaning is here set down, that he shut both Jews and Gentiles under unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all that believe, both Jews and Gentiles. William Perkins, A Commentarie or Exposition Vpon the fiue first chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians (Printed at London by Iohn Legatt, Printer to the Vniversitie of Cambridge, 1617), 196. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; footnotes mine; and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Davenant:

No grace or gift is bestowed upon any man for this very end, that he may abuse it, but many excellent graces and gifts have been temporally bestowed upon angels and men not-elected with an eternal decree or purpose of God Not to keep them from abusing them, Not to keep them from incurring eternal death by abusing. This is the decree of reprobation which we admit: and if this author¹ can rightly infer that, this is contrary to the end and use of God’s gifts, we will subscribe to his conditional election and reprobation. If he hope to infer this conclusion, his premisses must be, Every absolute decree of God to permit the final abuse of any of his good gifts or graces, is contrary to the use or end of bestowing them upon man. But that decree of absolute negative reprobation which we defend is an absolute decree, &c. ERGO, it is contrary, &c. The major proposition will be denied by all judicious Divines, and can never be proved by the Remonstrants. Non institutio bonarei sed exorbitatio reproband est.²

That God wills the good of men in bestowing any good gifts or graces upon them, needed no proof at all: We have always affirmed willing granted this proposition. Yet for the true understanding thereof it must be observed, that when we say this is God’s will, this is God’s aim or intent, these words have not always the same signification. This author by confounding the divers meaning of these and the like words does strangely entangle himself through his whole discourse. For therefore, any thing is said to be according to God’s will, which considered in itself is according to the goodness and purity of the Divine nature. This is a perpetual necessary volition in God, qua deo placet omne bonum. And this simplex complancentia towards³ all good actions of men or events unto men, is possible circa creaturas omnes etiam nunquam futuras: For there is no goodness imaginable, which has not an agreement with the good will of God, which we call amorem simplicus complacentia.⁴ Satis constat hujusmodi complacentiam dei versari circa pœnitentiam, gratum & gloriam possibilem Iuda ant cujus libert damnati. 2. Secondly, God is said to will, desire, or aim-at that good, for the obtaining whereof he affords fitting means, though withal he wills that it shall be in the liberty of the creature to hinder and frustrate those means, and those he have absolutely decreed to permit the creature to abuse them unto his own destruction. This is that which usually is termed by Divines voluntas antecedens voluntas conditionata, voluntas simplicis complacentiæ. And thus God is said to aim-at or to will and desire the conversation and salvation of those who never shall be converted, justified or saved. Neither must we think that by these means⁵ God’s omnipotent will is cross, because his voluntas simplicis complantæ is not fulfilled. For the absolute will of God was, that in such persons their own free-will might hinder the good effect of his gifts and graces, which he was absolutely resolved to permit for some greater good. Lastly, there is a will in God strictly and most properly is called voluntas beneplaciti or his absolute will, which is not only a liking of the good willed unto the creature, and an ordering of fit means whereby the creature (if his own free-will hinder not) may attain it; but a merciful decree of so ordering the means and the very will of the creature, that it shall infallibly and unfrustatingly obtain the good end whereunto such means were accommodated. And of this Ruiz truly affirms, Sola hæ c voluntas absoluta simpliciter amplectitur objectum, & ideo sola simpliciter & absolute meritur nomen voluntatis beneplaciti.⁶ We grant, therefore, that in the second acception⁷ of the word will God truly wills, likes, desires the repentance, faith, perseverance, and salvation of all to whom the Gospel is preached and Christ offered. But in the last and most proper acception, God wills the perseverance and salvation only of his elect, in whom he never ceases working till the happy effect is produced.

Our Divines at Dort granted a true and serious will in God according to the second acception of the word will, but not according to the last. Which will simplicis complacentæ may stand with absolute reprobation.

Read the rest of this entry »

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 »