Rev Donald Beaton
A further extract from The Reformed Faith, continued from the November issue, p 336. The final part of this section will appear in next month’s magazine, DV.
PASSAGES in Scripture which speak of the possibility of those perishing for whom Christ died are hypothetical, and as Dr A A Hodge says: “They truly indicate the nature and tendency of the action against which they warn us, and are the means which God uses under the administration of His Spirit to fulfil His purposes. . . . In the case of Paul’s shipwreck, it was certain that none should perish, and yet all would perish except they abide in the ship (Acts 27:24-31)” (Outlines of Theology, p 421).
(b) Amyraldianism, or Hypothetical or Conditional Universalism. This view was first promulgated by the theologians of Saumur. It had its origin in the teaching of John Cameron, Professor of Theology at the above-named college in France. Cameron declared that Christ died for no man simply, but on condition that we who are of the world should be delivered from the world and engrafted into Christ by true faith (Smeaton, The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement, p. 540). The doctrine was shaped into a system by his distinguished pupil, Amyraud, whose Latin name, Amyraldus, was given to the doctrine. Amyraldus in his Treatise on Predestination (1634) systematised the teaching of his master. In this treatise Amyraldus says: “The sacrifice which Jesus Christ offered was equally for all; and the salvation which He received from His Father, in the sanctification of the spirit and the glorification of the body, was destined equally for all, provided the necessary disposition for receiving it were equal”. This teaching met with strong opposition, especially from Rivetus and Spanheim1. Amyraldus expressed admiration for Calvin and maintained that the system which he advocated was but a logical outcome and historical development of ideas found in the Institutes. He had also the idea that this view of the extent of redemption would appeal to the Lutherans who, since the Synod of Dort, had become more opposed to the Reformed teaching on this doctrine. Amyraldus tried to show that there might be a general reference to all men in redemption, a doctrine which the Lutherans insisted on maintaining, while he also retained the Reformed doctrine of limited, or definite, redemption.
The French National Synod of 1637 summoned Amyraldus and his
1The great work, however, on this subject is Frederick Spanheim’s excercitations on Universal Grace, 1646. Here every point is calmly and lucidly reviewed, with little of the acrimony of controversy (Smeaton, op cit, p 471).
friend, Paul Testard, pastor at Blois, before it. They stated: “That Jesus Christ died for all men sufficiently but for the elect only effectually; and that consequently His intention was to die for all men in respect of the sufficiency of His satisfaction, but for the elect only in respect of its quickening and saving virtue and efficacy” (Quick, Synodicon, vol 2, p 354). After being cautioned, they were given the right hand of fellowship by the Moderator. Further complaints were made at the National Synod of 1644-45, when the following decision was come to: “This Assembly, being very well satisfied with his [Amyraldus’] explications and sense given of his doctrine agreeable to that of the Synod of Alençon [1637]; and judging it best to bury in the grave of oblivion all those reciprocal complaints brought in from all parties, hath, as formerly, dismissed the said Sieur Amyraud with honour to the exercise of his professorship, wherein he is exhorted to employ himself with courage and cheerfulness” (Quick, op cit, vol 2, p 455).
It would thus appear from these decisions that the French Protestant Church did not see anything seriously wrong in the Amyraldian teaching. That we are not doing them injustice the following words from Principal Cunningham will show: “The Synod of 1637 manifested a considerable amount of unfaithfulness to God in connection with the doctrines, and the unfaithfulness did not fail to appear in the Synod of 1645 — the one only 17 and the other 25 years after the solemn adoption by the National Synod of the canons of the Synod of Dort. The National Synods and purity of doctrine seem very much to have gone down together, as it is remarkable that the one became more impure as the other grew rarer. In point of fact, so far had the Synods come short of faithful testimony to the truth of God, that the most elaborate book in defence of the universality of the atonement, in a Calvinistic point of view, by Daillé, is literally entitled as ‘an apology for the two Synods’. This impurity of doctrine must be viewed, I think, in connection with the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes” (Speech in the General Assembly of the Free Church of 1859 on the occasion of the Tercentenary of the French Synod).
The Amyraldian system has been summarised by Dr Charles Hodge under the following heads: “(a) The motive impelling God to redeem men was benevolence, or love to men in general. (b) From this motive He sent His Son to make the salvation of all men possible. (c) God in virtue of a universal hypothetical decree, offers salvation to all men if they believe in Christ. (d) All men have a natural ability to repent and believe. (e) But as this natural ability was counteracted by a moral inability, God determined to give His efficacious grace to a certain number of the human race, and
thus to secure their salvation” (Systematic Theology, vol 2, p 322). At present it is not necessary to expose the unscripturalness of this view, except to say that Dr Smeaton has in a few sentences laid his finger on its weak spot. “The whole Amyraldist theory was without a foundation,” he says, “and its absurdity was increased by the fact that these divines formed a new arrangement of the divine decrees, making the atonement universal, and the election special” (op cit, p 470).
Amyraldianism was introduced into England by the works of Polhill and into Scotland by a posthumous work2 by the Rev James Fraser, of Brea. It was prepared for the press by the Rev Thomas Mair, minister of the Associate congregation at Orwell (Milnathort), and published in 1749. It produced a great commotion in the Associate Synod and in the Reformed Presbyterian Presbytery. Mr Mair described Adam Gib’s condemnation of Fraser and the book as “truly shocking”. Mair pleaded that he did not subscribe to Fraser’s scheme of doctrine in its entirety. In April 1737 he was deposed from the ministry (Small, History of the Congregations of the United Presbyterian Church, vol 1, p 375). In 1753 the book caused a disruption in the Reformed Presbyterian Presbytery3. What was the teaching in this book which caused so much disturbance? Dr. James Walker in his Theology and Theologians of Scotland summarises it as follows: “He [Fraser of Brea] asserts that Christ obeyed and died in the room of all as the head and representative of fallen man’; that men are all fundamentally justified in Him and through Him’; that Christ died for all’. But, then, are all men saved? No; God did not mean to save any but His chosen. What, then, was the effect of that one indivisible sacrifice for all which God’s Son offered on the cross? Well, first of all, to lay a real foundation for the gospel offer. For every man satisfaction was rendered, and every man might appropriate it as something subjectively real. It comes to this, in short, Fraser plainly states it, that Christ dies for reprobates that they may come under a more tremendous doom; as, on the other hand, He dies for the elect that theirs may be an all-transcendent blessedness.” We have been at pains to enter more minutely into these discussions than we otherwise would owing to the fact that we wish to clear our way to deal with the views held by Ussher, Davenent, Baxter, and the Marrowmen.
Let not our readers go away with the idea that the subjects discussed in
2Doubts have been expressed as to its authorship, but it is generally accepted as the work of the Rev James Fraser of Brea, and minister of Culross. Fraser belonged to the Frasers of Lovat and was held in high esteem by the evangelical party in the Scottish Church.
3The story of this controversy will be found in M Hutchison, The Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, pp 194-203.
these controversies are trivial, and that, after all, the discussions are merely fine hair-splitting by ecclesiastics with a penchant for controversy. It is scarcely correct to say that Amyraldianism was taught by Baxter and Calamy, as we shall see later on is affirmed by the late Principal Lindsay. He is nearer the mark, however, when he says it is part of “much modern evangelical theology” (Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol 1, p 406).
John Welsh6. Condemned
Continued from the November issue, page 341
THE six prisoners, Welsh among them, had been summoned to their trial, and their very lives were at stake. Two of their lawyers, distinguished members of the bar, declined to take any part in the case, and it was suggested that this was the result of pressure from the Chancellor. This left Thomas Gray, an old man, willing enough to proceed, but lacking in ability, and Thomas Hope, for whom this was his first case before a court. But Hope conducted the case with such skill that it established his reputation as a good man and a good advocate. These two remaining lawyers argued that their clients ought not to be tried for high treason as they had manifestly not been granted the 40 days allowed by law to persons accused of capital crimes so that they could prepare their defences. The argument was not accepted and, not for the last time, the court was less than open in the way the votes of its members were counted.
Hamilton, the King’s advocate, then addressed the court with such malice against the truth that Andrew Melville told him to his face the following year “that the accuser of the brethren could have done no more against the saints of God”. Hamilton rested his case on an Act of Parliament of 1584 which gave the King and his councils total authority over all his subjects in every conceivable respect. But the defence were able to point out that this act had been amended in 1592 to make it clear that it did not apply to ecclesiastical matters. Welsh told the court that he and his fellow-accused fully acknowledged the authority of the King and Council in civil matters, and concluded, “As civil affairs should be judged by the King and civil persons only, so should ecclesiastical affairs be judged only by the Kirk, and by the King only as a member of the Kirk”. When further attempts to make the prisoners withdraw their declination proved unavailing, the court came to its decision. The presiding judge announced that all the Lords had
found the prisoners’ declination to be treason. “Say not all, my Lord,” cried the Earl of Mar, “for there are here that are not, and never will be, of that judgement.” It was even alleged that only five out of the at least 23 members of the court concurred in the decision given in their name. Justice and truth in Scotland had indeed fallen in the streets by the early 1600s.
The jury was then called, some of whom, Welsh freely accepted, were “faithful and honest men”, but others could easily be threatened into doing what the authorities wanted. Most of them had not been present at the previous part of proceedings, which was quite contrary to proper procedure. The Lord Advocate began by informing the jury that the accused were on trial for treason because they had declined the authority of the Privy Council in the matter of the Assembly held in Aberdeen — of which the Council were the proper judges, he went on to claim, by the act of 1584. The jury had no business to decide whether or not treason was involved, he told them, only to decide the facts of the case. He concluded by threatening the jury that their lands, goods and lives would be forfeit to the Crown if they did not bring in a verdict of guilty. Thomas Hope, speaking for the defence, argued that it was the duty of the jury to consider the wider issues, and exhorted them “to fear the great and righteous God and His Son Jesus Christ, who shall be the great judge of the world,” and they were to remember that the accused were held both in the Church of God, and in the country generally, with almost universal respect.
The prisoners were then permitted to address the jury themselves. Forbes spoke first and explained in detail all that had happened. Before closing his speech he reminded the jury of how the King himself and the nobles of Scotland had a number of times sworn the National Covenant. Among those who had done so, Forbes reminded them, were a number who that day were their judges. By subscribing the Covenant they had bound themselves to maintain the existing government and discipline of the Church. He then took out of his pocket a printed copy of the Covenant and read this extract: “To the which (that is, the Reformed Church) we join ourselves willingly in doctrine, faith, religion, discipline and use of the holy sacraments as lively members of the same in Christ our Head, promising and swearing by the great name of the Lord our God that we shall continue in the doctrine and discipline of this Church, and shall defend the same according to our vocation and power all the days of our life upon the pains contained in the law, and danger both of body and soul in the day of God’s fearful judgement”.
Welsh spoke next. “Although our persons are not to be much regarded,” he told the jury, “yet have we found this mercy of God, to be the servants
of Jesus Christ. However men esteem of us, yet in His sight, and before the Lord, we are no less than ambassadors of the great God, carrying the message of death and life, of salvation and condemnation, to the people; and, therefore, whatever shall be done to us He shall account it as done to Himself.” Welsh went on to explain the legal position, as their counsel had previously done, reminding the jury of the difference between the spheres of authority of, on the one hand, the King, parliament and councils, and on the other hand, the courts of the Church, which “belong essentially to Christ’s royal authority; and the judgement of all His assemblies . . . , and so consequently of a General Assembly, belongs only to Christ Jesus the only King, in and by His Kirk. As civil affairs should be judged only by civil persons, so spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs should be judged only by spiritual persons.” He pointed also to a previous “declinature of the authority of His Majesty and of the Lords of the Secret Council, which was subscribed by almost the whole ministers of the whole Kirk in this land, to the number of 400 ministers or thereby. Yea, these same bishops of ours and commissioners, who are now the fountain of all our troubles . . . they also subscribed the same declinature . . . which we have in readiness to produce, to witness to their faces that not only all the ministers, but they also who are now our enemies, approved and justified the same cause for which we now suffer.”
By this speech, we are told, “the hearts of the jury and of all that were present were much moved”, but what could plain, logical reasoning be expected to achieve, and even powerful appeals to the conscience, when the whole system was so corrupt? Hamilton, the Lord Advocate, even interrupted Welsh to tell the jury over again that their only business was to decide whether or not the accused had declined the authority of the Privy Council. And, after Welsh had finished, Hamilton spoke again; he ended by once more making dire threats against the members of the jury if they did not bring in the verdict he was looking for.
In a second speech Forbes spoke with tremendous solemnity about Saul’s breaking of the oath made by Joshua and all Israel to the Gibeonites. He applied the matter to the King, because he was violating his solemn engagements to the Church in Scotland; he did so, we are told, with “threatening most terrible (and) made all the hearers astonished and their hairs to stand”. For over six hours the jury considered their verdict in a room below the court. But, doubtless to see that they did their duty to the King, one of the judges was present — which, of course, was completely illegal.
When it became clear that the jury would probably acquit the accused, their foreman and the judge returned to court to let them know which way
the matter was likely to go. Two judges and the foreman of the jury were then dispatched to make a further attempt to persuade the accused to withdraw their declination claiming, though they expected the opposite, that the ministers would certainly be condemned. When this proved unsuccessful, more threats were applied to the jury, along with promises that no harm would come either to the Church or to the prisoners. By a majority of nine to six the jury at last returned a verdict of guilty. One jurymen, John Livingstone, declared that he not only acquitted the prisoners of treason, but owned them to be honest ministers of Christ and good subjects of the King. And two of the nine who condemned the ministers became deeply disturbed for their part in bringing in so flagrantly unjust a verdict, and only found peace after making confession of their sin.
When Elizabeth Welsh heard in Ayr that her husband was likely to be brought to trial she made her way to Blackness as quickly as possible. While the jury was considering the verdict she waited with the wives of the other ministers. And, when the verdict was announced, they thanked the Lord Jesus, who had given their husbands strength and courage to stand for His cause, before adding, “They were even entreated as their Master was before them, judged and condemned under silence of night”.
(To be continued)