A Review: The National Synod Of The Belgic Reformed Churches, Held At Dort, In The Years 1618 and 1619

Gospel Standard 1882:

“The Judgment of the National Synod of the Belgic Reformed Churches, held at Dort, in the years 1618 and 1619, concerning the Five Points of Christian Doctrine contained in the Holy Bible,—the Word of God. Translated into the English language by Owen Jones, Docking, Norfolk.”

We conscientiously object to an established church in any form, believing that such establishments are unscriptural, and always have proved themselves to be, more or less, persecuting bodies. These religious formations stand opposed to the separate, independent churches formed by the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Every true church is complete in itself.

Viewing, as we do, an established church as an unscriptural one, we cannot admit that it is the guardian of truth. The history of the past up to the present period shows that established religions have failed to preserve in the daily teaching of their church even the letter of truth. The Thirty-nine Articles are a dead letter, and those few who adhere to them are destitute of power to enforce them. And the history of the true church from the time of the apostles proves that she has always been a wanderer in the earth. She has been invaded by erroneous men and their errors; and there is no outward protection promised against their inroads, seeing the Word of the Lord declares heresies must come: “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” (1 Cor. 11:19.) How solemn are these words! It matters not how long men may stand connected with the church of God; they cannot stand the force of error, if they are not vitally united to Christ. But how strange that the Holy Spirit should purge his people through erroneous men coming in among them! Hence, if we look for the real church of God in still waters, we shall not find her there. She will be found where erroneous men and their errors are continually disturbing her peace. An established church, according to the common acceptation of the term, is not the church of Christ.

As a part of this false system, we object to her synods. That the Synod of Dort, 1618 and 1619, may have been composed of some of the principal leading Protestants of the age we acknowledge; but this does not justify convocations of that kind. Neither is the Synod of Dort an exception to the rule that such bodies imbibe a persecuting spirit; for persecution was carried out by that assembly to a grievous extent. The Synod of Dort not only condemned the tenets of Arminius, but his followers were subjected to persecutions of a most barbarous nature. They were driven into exile and poverty. Such conduct we are compelled to condemn, and wipe our hands clean from any participation therein. It is both unscriptural and unchristian to persecute any one on account of his sentiments. The New Testament gives no authority to the church over others beyond that of separation from herself.

But we have to inquire into a more grievous and fatal spirit of error which is invading almost every professing body in the present day; and many would be glad to trace the same in the articles prescribed by this assembly. The doctrine to which we refer is Baxterianism. We dare not pass it by unnoticed, as we believe an indefinite atonement is openly declared by some whose names appear in the pages of the pamphlet before us. The term “indefinite atonement” is applied to the Baxterian idea of redemption, which is, that the atonement is sufficient for the whole world, if the whole world would believe. Nothing could be more at variance with Scripture, as maintained in the sentiments of Toplady; neither ought such persons to adopt his creed as that of their own, for it is nothing of the kind. But more of this by-and-by.

The extreme repugnance we have, as a body, to the doctrine of an indefinite atonement causes us to raise an alarm whenever we hear of it. By these views persons contradict and throw down the very truths they profess to hold, especially with regard to election. For instance, Fuller says plainly that “none ever did or will believe in Christ but those who were chosen of God from eternity; and the rest are sure to perish.” Yet he does not believe in the redemption of particular persons; for he says, “Upon the supposition of the atonement being insufficient for the salvation of any more than are actually saved by it, the non-elect are in the same state, with respect to a being reconciled to God through it, as the fallen angels; that is, the thing is not only morally, but naturally impossible. But if there be an objective fulness in the atonement of Christ, sufficient for any number of sinners, were they to believe in him; there is no other impossibility in the way of any man’s salvation, to whom the gospel comes at least, than what arises from the state of his mind.”

If none ever did or will believe but the elect, what advantage does Mr. Fuller himself find in an objective fulness of the atonement for the non-elect? Seeing these perish in their sins (and he says they are sure to do so), it is true that they can have no more participation in the saving effects of the atonement than the fallen angels.

But these adherents to Baxterian views are afraid to preach election as the Bible teaches it, because they say it might have a bad tendency! Is not this shocking in the extreme? a Bible truth having a bad tendency! And they put forth the most deceptive arguments and delusive ideas to do away with the truth of election which they cannot deny.

The Synod of Dort met to refute the doctrines of Arminius, and drew up and established as articles of their faith the five points following:

I. Election and Predestination.

II. Particular and Eternal Redemption of all the Elect.

III. The Fall of Man, Spiritual Death.

IV. Regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and Effectual Calling (by Grace).

V. The Final Perseverance of the Saints.

How many profess these main points of Christian truth, and yet put an interpretation of their own upon them. They are misinterpreted by all who hold an indefinite atonement. The intended meaning of the Synod is further explained in a number of articles on each point; and these for the most part seem to be clear and scriptural. To some of them we shall refer.

1. Concerning predestination, article 5 states: “The cause or the fault of men’s unbelief, and of all their other sins, is not in God, but in men. But faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through him and by him are the free and gracious gift of God, as it is written: ‘By grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.’ (Eph. 2:8.) Also, ‘It is given to you by grace to believe in Christ.’ (Acts 18:17; Phil. 1:29.)”

This article refers to the truth that man is the author of his own sin, and that Jesus Christ is the Author of salvation. The word “fault” refers to the simple condition of a man in which he fails to believe until the cause of the fault be removed. It cannot be intended to convey any idea that man himself can remove the fault if he will. That would be contrary to the expression of the article, which says that “faith in Jesus Christ is the free and gracious gift of God.” We shall have occasion to notice this more fully further on.

The 10th article on the same point is as follows:

“But the cause of this gracious election is the sole good pleasure of God; not consisting in this, that on account of certain qualities or human actions which may be in us that he chose us into a state of salvation; but in this, because, out of the common multitude of sinners, God chose certain particular persons to himself, to be his flock, according as it is written: ‘This people have I formed for myself; they shall show forth my praise.'” (Isa. 43:21.)…

Nothing can be more clear than that eternal and personal election is here set forth. And in the 13th, 14th, and 15th articles it is expressly stated that this doctrine should be preached openly as it has been, both under the Old and New Testaments. Baxterian views certainly cannot stand with the teaching of these articles.

The doctrine of particular election is further insisted on in nine statements drawn up to reject the opposite errors; and in these the meaning of the Synod is fairly given in accordance with truth.

We find, however, here and there in the various articles certain expressions which we cannot endorse. The 16th is an instance:

“They who do not as yet effectually perceive and feel within themselves a living faith in Christ, and sure confidence of heart in Christ, peace of conscience, careful study of filial obedience, a rejoicing and glorying in God, through Christ, should nevertheless be exercised in those means in which God hath promised that he himself will work these things in us. They ought not to be terrified by the mention of reprobation, nor think themselves reprobates; but they ought diligently to proceed in the use of the means which God hath ordained, and they ought ardently to desire and long for, and reverently and humbly wait for the hour of more abundant grace. Much less ought they who have been truly converted unto God and regenerated by the Holy Ghost to be terrified by the doctrine of reprobation; but they should desire and strive to please God, and to be delivered from sin and the body of death, although they cannot as yet proceed in the way of piety and faith, even as they would wish; yet, nevertheless, the  merciful God hath promised that he will not quench the smoking flax, nor break the bruised reed. But this doctrine is deservedly dreadful to those who, forgetting God and the Saviour Jesus Christ, have wholly given themselves over to the world, and to the pleasures of the flesh, so long as they are not truly converted unto God.”

The language used above is what every little child, born of God, would soon find to be unsatisfactory. A quickened soul at first generally thinks he is a reprobate; and we are sure that none but God can relieve his fears, or convince him to the contrary.

Part of the 13th, too, is expressed in somewhat unguarded terms concerning man’s will; where it says,

“But they who are not willing to walk in the ways of the elect and who refuse to bow to, and to recognize, and to submit to the righteous and just counsel of God, concerning this grace of election, do either rashly presume, or idly and wantonly prate. (1 Jn. 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:4.)”

Neither can we agree with the 17th article:

“Seeing that it is revealed to us by the will of God in his own Word, which testifieth that the children of the faithful are holy, not indeed by nature, but by the virtue and benefit of the covenant of grace, in which they are included with their parents (see 1 Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:22, &c.), pious parents ought not to doubt of the election and salvation of their children whom God calleth in infancy out of this life.”…

These ideas are a little part of the system of infant sprinkling and a national church. In 1 Cor. 7:14, the apostle is not referring to covenant holiness, but to marriage holiness. We believe that children dying in infancy are saved; but not by virtue of their parents being included in the covenant of grace.

On the second point, concerning redemption, the 1st article states:

“God is not only infinitely merciful, but also infinitely just; and his justice demands (according as he has revealed in his Word) that our sins committed against his infinite Majesty should be punished, not only with temporal, but also with eternal pains both of soul and body; which punishments we cannot escape unless the justice of God be satisfied.” (Lk 17; Rom. 5)

We fully agree with the language of this statement, and also of the 2nd article relating to the satisfaction of justice.

Passing on to the 3rd article we find there an unscriptural sentiment expressed, and one which we believe lies at the bottom of a multitude of errors and all those universal invitations which are commonly held to be gospel:

“This death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins. It is of infinite virtue, and infinitely precious, and of infinite efficacy, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.”

It is very unwise and unsafe to argue upon what is possible with God. “All things are possible with God;” but he doeth “whatsoever pleaseth him.” We must not argue that he has created everything that was possible because he had power to do so. We might say the atonement could have been made sufficient for the sins of the whole world; but we nowhere find a word in the Scriptures to warrant the assertion that it was so made sufficient. The Word of God simply states for whom redemption or atonement is made, and there is no saving benefit or possibility of salvation procured by it for the rest of mankind. It is written: “He hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all.” If he laid the iniquity of the whole world upon him, he bore the weight of the iniquity of the whole world, and not one sinner could perish. If he did not bear it, that iniquity was not laid upon him. Consequently, there could be no atonement for those whose iniquities were not laid upon him. Therefore we cannot allow that the sufficiency of the atonement extends to all the world; but it is limited to the design and intention of God in providing it.

We think there is more consistency in the Arminians’ doctrine, who roundly tell us that the whole world may be saved upon the ground of universal redemption and their free-will. Surely the infinite efficacy of redemption would not be manifest in an extension to all the world, many of whom perish notwithstanding! The Synod itself does in effect contradict its own 3rd article (above quoted), and clear itself from a possible charge of holding an indefinite atonement by a declaration on the succeeding page that they reject the errors of those 

“Who teach ‘That God the Father appointed and ordained his Son to the death of the cross without a definite and certain and fixed counsel of saving any one by name; and so that with regard to the impetration or accomplishment of the death of Christ, its necessity, utility, blessing, and dignity would be preserved, and continue sound and perfect in all its parts, and would remain complete and entire, although the redemption obtained should be actually applied and given to no individual whatsoever.'”

By this it may be seen that Baxterians cannot be said to have these divines on their side. Yet it is on such dangerous ground as the sentiment we have just pointed out of a sufficiency in the atonement for all the world that Baxterians and others found the most erroneous views. They affirm that the particularity of redemption “consists in the sovereign pleasure of God with regard to the application of the atonement.” That is, they teach that Christ, by his merits on the cross, gave satisfaction to divine justice sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world; that he died as much for the non-elect as for the elect; and, the reason why the elect are saved is not because Christ died for them specially, but because the benefit of his death is applied to them sovereignly. To put it more plainly, that all mankind are now brought into a salvable condition, and all might be saved if they would believe.

Thus Fuller writes concerning the reconciliation made on the cross: “I conceive it to be that satisfaction to the divine justice by virtue of which nothing pertaining to the moral government of God ‘hinders any sinner from returning to him; and that it is upon this ground that sinners are indefinitely invited to do so.” He also says, “There is not anything in the atonement, or promised to it, which infallibly ascertains its application to all those for whom it was sufficient.” And further: “It is a fact that the Scriptures rest the general invitations of the gospel upon the atonement of Christ. (2 Cor. 5:19-21; Matt. 22:4; Jn. 3:16.) But if there were not a sufficiency in the atonement for the salvation of sinners without distinction, how could the ambassadors of Christ beseech them to be reconciled to God?” &c.

Can anything be more fallacious than the sentiments couched in these quotations? The portion of Scripture brought to establish them, 2 Cor. 5:19-21, has no reference whatever to beseeching dead sinners to be reconciled to God. The words are addressed to the church of God, already reconciled by the Lord; and she is exhorted in them, by the power of his reconciliation, to be reconciled to God as her Father, reconciled to his fatherly dispensations, and all his dealings with her.

The following incident illustrates well the meaning of this passage: An old minister in Suffolk, who was also a farmer, had these words applied to his mind early one Lord’s day morning: “Be ye reconciled to God.” He replied, “Lord, I do not know what the words mean.” He rose early and went round his farm; and everything appeared to be right. At last he entered his stable, and there lay his best horse dead. The words came to his mind with some force: “Be ye reconciled to God.” He replied, “So I would if it had been one of the other horses; but this is my best horse, and harvest is at hand, and I have not sufficient strength now to gather it in. What shall I do?” “Be ye reconciled to God,” came again with more force; but he said, “I would, Lord, if it had not been my best horse.” Again the words were repeated: “Be ye reconciled to God.” The power which accompanied them this time awoke him as from a dream, and he exclaimed, “Dear me! Why, that is what the text means, to be reconciled to God for the loss of my horse!” The poor man preached from the words that morning; and as the horse was worth £30, he told the people he had a text which cost him £30 to learn its meaning. When a man gets a knowledge of the truth in such a way he will never blunder about what it means.

The 5th article relates to the simple truth that the gospel is to be preached or proclaimed to all nations:

“Furthermore, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified should not perish, but have eternal life; which promise, with the command of repentance and faith, ought to be proclaimed and set forth indiscriminately, and without distinction unto all people and men, unto whom God of his own good pleasure sendeth the gospel. (Lk. 24:46, 47; Acts 17:30.)”

That the gospel is to be preached to “every creature” we fully believe; but nowhere in the Bible do we read that it is to be offered to any. The efficacy of the gospel is from the blessed Spirit alone; and moreover, except he makes it good news to a soul, no man can believe it to be so.

We will quote the late Mr. Gadsby’s words on preaching the gospel to sinners, as they coincide exactly with our own views on the subject:

“About 16 years ago I heard a young man from Hoxton Academy pretend to preach, and he made the following remarks: ‘I now offer you Christ, and Christ stands with open arms ready to receive you; yea, he begs, he prays, and beseeches you to come to him, and have life, and yet some of you will not come; nay, it is as if God the Father came and fell upon his knees before you, begging and beseeching you to receive Christ and come and be reconciled to him, and yet you will not come.’ In this way he continued for a considerable length of time, and this he called preaching the gospel to every creature. From a professed Arminian such remarks might be expected; but for one who professes to believe in eternal and absolute election to use such awful expressions is one of the highest insults that can be offered, in a religious shape, either to God or man. It represents both Christ and God the Father as poor disappointed beings, quite unable to subdue the heart of a poor dying worm.

“And what encouragement can there be in such a gospel an this for any poor, broken-hearted, self-despairing sinner in the world to trust in the Lord for salvation? “Who dare trust the concerns of eternity in the hands of a being who cannot obtain a favour which he desires and seeks with earnest supplication on, his knees? But, thanks be to God, we have not so learned Christ. We know that’ whatsoever his soul desireth, even that he doeth.’ (Job 23:13.) Hence, says Christ, ‘All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out.’ (Jn. 6:37.) ‘Thy people shall be willing in the in the day of thy power.’ (Ps. 110:3.) ‘All thy children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy children.’ (Isa. 54:13.) ‘Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice.’ (Jn. 10:16.)

“What has an offered gospel to do with such eternal bulwarks as these? When all free-will offers are sunk in oblivion, God’s immutable shalls and wills shall stand. Bless his precious Name, there is nothing precarious in the salvation of his people. He does not leave it to them whether they will accept offered mercy or not. No; they shall hear his voice, and they shall live. They shall be willing in the day of his power, and they shall know the Lord, and they shall be God’s people, and he will be their God. He has sent his ministers to preach the gospel, not to offer it, and he himself has engaged to make it manifest in the hearts of his people. To them the gospel comes not in word only, but in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance.”

“I believe that ministers of Jesus Christ are to invite poor sinners to come to Christ; and whosoever reads ‘The Perfect Law of Liberty,’ which is the book Mr. Gawthorn has written against, will soon be convinced that I invite poor, lost, ruined, self-despairing sinners to come to the Lord Jesus Christ. I admit that I cannot invite a man in full health and strength to come to the Physician and be healed. ‘The whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.’ But I can freely invite every poor and needy, burdened, heavy-laden, hungry and thirsty, sensibly lost and ruined sinner to come to Christ; one who feels himself far from righteousness, and at the far end of all his earthly goodness, and in his own view is without God and without hope in the world; who is willing to be saved in God’s own way, but fears he is too lost and wretched to be saved. To such sinners I can say, in the language of divine truth, ‘Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters; and he that hath no money, let him come and buy wine and milk, without money and without price;’ and’ whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.’ But unless we descend to scriptural characters, we cannot separate between the precious and the vile.

“I know that universal offers and proffers are the fashion of the day, grounded upon its being the duty of all men, where the gospel is preached, to have saving faith in Christ. But if the faith of God’s elect is a duty required by the law of works, then real faith in Christ must be a work of the law, and the gospel is established by the works of the law; yea, then God’s people are saved by the works of the law; and all the goings out of faith to Christ and his gospel, and all that faith brings into the conscience from Christ, under the unctuous teachings of the Holy Ghost, are all by the works of the law; that is, if the law requires this faith. And when the believer is said to be justified by faith, it means he is justified by the works of the law; and if this faith be a duty required by the law, it must be required by the law as a covenant of works. Hence all that is said about salvation not being of works, lest any man should boast, must be a mere parade; and indeed, all the distinction the apostle makes between the law of works and the law of faith (Rom. 3:27), and between working and believing (Rom. 4:5), and of the Jews seeking to be justified, not by faith, but by the works of the law (Rom. 9:32), must be a wild fancy in his brains. For if this faith be required by the law, then it must be a work of the law; and how faith can be made void, if they which are of the law be heirs (Rom. 4:14), and if the law requires the faith of God’s elect, is a mystery to me.”

“Universal offers and proffers may please a promiscuous multitude, but they will not strengthen the diseased, nor heal the sick, nor bind up the broken, nor gather them which are driven away, nor find them which are lost. We must come down to cases and circumstances to do this; and the Lord is against those shepherds which do it not.” (Ez. 36:1-10.)

By these quotations may be clearly seen what it is to preach to sinners, and likewise that the gospel is for sinners, to whom it is to be preached. In this we agree with the 5th article of the Synod, before quoted, which teaches that the gospel “ought to be proclaimed and set forth indiscriminately unto all people and men,” &c. And we trust enough has been said already to prove that the assembly of Dort did not hold an indefinite atonement, and on that ground invite the world to partake of the blessing. As this is an important point, and one very much controverted, we will add two more extracts from the articles on the subject:

“This is what God willed,—that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he hath confirmed the new covenant) should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and tongue, all those,—and those only, which were elected from eternity unto salvation, and were given by the Father to him.”…

The Synod rejected the errors of those “Who teach” that Christ by his satisfaction merited for none certainly and positively salvation itself, and faith by which this satisfaction of Christ is effectually applied unto salvation; but had only obtained for the Father the power of treating again with men, and of prescribing whatever new conditions he willed, of which the performance depended on the free-will of man; and so that on this account it might come to pass that no one or that all might fulfil them.’ For these do judge exceeding contemptibly of the death of Christ, notwithstanding they acknowledge that an eminent fruit or benefit has been obtained through it, and they recall the Pelagian error from hell.”

The Synod held the five points of doctrine clearly enough, and the wording of the second,—The Particular and Eternal Redemption of all the Elect—if faithfully followed, must exclude Baxterian views of the atonement. But at the same time, we repeat, we most certainly object to some expressions of the articles wherein the faith of that assembly is given in detail, being fully aware of the undue advantage that is taken of these to support error. Such are some of the following expressions:

“But that many being called by the gospel do not repent, nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief; this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the infinitely meritorious sacrifice of Christ offered upon the cross, but it is their own fault. (Jn. 5:40; and 6:36.)”

Also the 4th article on the fourth point of doctrine, regeneration, makes use of similar language:

“But that many being called by the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not converted; this fault is not in the gospel, nor in Christ offered by the gospel, nor in God calling through the gospel, and also conferring various gifts on them, but in the called themselves,” &c.

That there is an effectual call of the gospel, and an external call, is acknowledged by all sound divines. The Scriptures speak of some who are “called according to his purpose;” and also say, “Many are called, but few chosen;” thus showing that calling is more extensive than election. Consequently, many of those who are called have only an external call, and will in the end wither away. A natural or letter faith is all that is brought forth if it should go no further than externals, and having no root, it withers and dies. It is at this outward call so many stumble. Let us attempt to show the nature of calling, and wherein the two differ, by placing them both side by side.

Every employment or occupation in life is a calling. For example, Aaron was occupied or employed in the business of the priesthood; and to this employment he was expressly called of God. So also the saints are employed in his service. (Rom. 7:6.) But whoever serves God acceptably must first be called of God, who will furnish the worshippers with all that is required for the service to which he has called them. As Aaron was provided of God with everything necessary for his priestly office, so those who are effectually called are supplied by the grace of God, and fitted for their calling or employment, that they may worship and serve God according to the mind of God.

Thus they are called to love God; and are furnished with love to fit them accordingly. They are called to believe; and are furnished with a spirit of faith to walk in faith, or serve God as believers. They are called to be prayers; and they are furnished with the gift of the Holy Spirit to teach them how to pray, and provide them with a spirit of prayer. And it is the same with all other graces.

But calling has another benefit attached, in that it gives the person a right to act in his calling. Aaron was not presuming when he performed his priestly office; but had he not been called, he would have shared the fate of some who approached the altar without a call. Likewise the children of God who are called, have a right conferred upon them, so that they do not presume when they approach the Lord, whatever may be their felt condition. It is the call gives them their right to come, and not the condition they may be in.

In like manner, the outward call of the gospel gives a person a right to believe in the letter of truth. That is, God grants by an external call a natural faith, and pronounces that to be well in its kind: “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well;” but this is merely raising believing natural men to a level with devils, “the devils also believe, and tremble.” (Jas. 2:19.) Therefore that belief is not presumption on his part. Presumption arises from going beyond this, and putting one’s own constructions on the letter of truth. So Saul went beyond the word given to him, and performed his own mind instead of the Lord’s, in sparing Agag and the best of the cattle, &c. (1 Sam. 15:9.)

This includes also a general call to all men to believe the Bible to be the Word of God, and outwardly to obey it on account of its supreme authority. But not to regenerate themselves and make their peace with God; nor to exercise any spiritual act. For God never requires what he has not given: “Who hath first prevented me, that I should repay him? Whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.” (Job 41:11.) The word “prevent” is literally to come before; that is, to be first in doing a service. If, then, God is beforehand with all his creatures, he never requires what he has not first given. (Rom. 11:35, 36.) Yet the general call to the world has its benefits. What has made the English a great nation? The Bible. And we fear God is tarnishing England’s glory because she is casting off national reverence for the Bible.

The benefit of an outward call is in itself, a moral benefit, which reaches no further than this life. All God’s commands and appointments must bring with them some good to men; they have their reward in themselves; and so has the outward call of God to sinners in the gospel. It brings with it a national and individual good wherever it is sent, by effecting a natural reformation.

This calling is very different from exhorting men dead in sin to believe to the saving of the soul. The gospel ministry is not established to give man a right to offer Christ, when he has given no power to man to give effect to the offer. The outward call of the gospel is not merely an ineffectual call, while the other is effectual, but the two relate to widely different things, and both are effectual for what they are appointed. How necessary it is, therefore, to keep them apart, and avoid such language as we have quoted above, which sounds as if many are called by the gospel to believe and repent, and do not do so. When the Lord sent Jonah to preach national repentance to the Ninevites, they “believed God.” Here is the effectual nature of a call from God. “For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.” (Ps. 33:9.)

We have already explained that the “infinitely meritorious sacrifice of Christ offered upon the cross” has no saving efficacy for any, save the elect. And by eternal and personal election there is no provision made for the salvation of the whole world. The “fault” is not in the gospel, it is true, as the Synod says, but in man; and the Holy Spirit does not remove that fault and regenerate the soul, for whom there is no atonement.

[A sermon of Mr. Philpot’s has just fallen into our hands, containing an illustration of the same point: “But this gospel comes to some ‘in word only.’ It never reaches their conscience, touches their heart, or has any saving effect upon their soul. It is in itself a good gospel, a pure, a dear, free gospel; but as regards many of those to whose outward ears it comes, it produces no divine result, it bears no fruit unto life eternal. As the seed cast forth by the hand of the husbandman may be good in itself, excellent of its kind, but if it fall upon the pavement, there it may lie till trodden under foot of men or picked up by the fowls of the air, so if the gospel do not in every instance bear saving fruit, the fault is not in the gospel itself, as there is no fault in the seed which is cast abroad by the hands of the sower. The whole difference is in the ground upon which the seed falls.”—“The Gospel, The Power of God Unto Salvation.]

It was a common word with the old divines, “the fault of sin.” What they meant by fault one of them shows by the following figure. A crooked wheel is a wheel with a fault in it; the more it is turned round, the more it demonstrates its fault. The fault is not in the man who turns the wheel. So unregenerate men are dead in sin; that is, wholly lost in the fault of sin. Hence, whatever natural faith they may have, the fault of sin still remains, and in the end drowns them in perdition. The word fault with the divines, so used, expressed a something so deeply rooted in the heart that, except God remove that fault, none can be saved.

If otherwise, and the cause of failure lay in a neglect of performing what man has power to do, then were men not dead, and there would be some merit in those who perform the work required. And this the Synod expressly denies in words that show it did not attach to the term “fault” the modern idea of its meaning. And we take it as used by the Belgic churches to express a defect, or the radical badness of the sinner by nature, like other old divines. It is also clear that these churches would not have called those who hold the Pelagian heresy “dear brethren.” Let the reader judge for himself:

“The Synod rejecteth the errors of those who teach ‘That because some before others are made the recipients and participators of forgiveness of sins, and of eternal life, that that discrimination depended upon their own free-will; they themselves, indifferently, of their own accord, applying for the offered grace; but not from the singular gift of God’s mercy, effectually working in them, in order that they might apply to God for that grace before others.’ For these, whilst they pretend that they themselves purposed, and made this distinction by their own right sense and superior understanding, do endeavour to make the people drink in the pernicious poison of Pelagianism. (Isa. 59:5, 6; 1 Cor. 1:4-9; Eph. 1:3, 4.)”

“Faith is the gift of God thus, not on this account, because it is offered by God to the free-will of man no, not so; but because faith unfeigned is given by God to man, and because it is inspired, and poured into the heart of man by God the Holy Ghost. (Col. 2:12.)”

We must, therefore, give the Synod its due, and free it from any charge of implication in Baxterian errors; or, in other words, of teaching that there is a universal call to sinners, and all may be saved if they will on the ground of the atonement. The articles on the 3rd and 4th heads of doctrine, relating to the fall of man and regeneration, give additional evidence that on these main points the Belgic reformed churches were strict advocates for the truth.

We are led to notice the crafty way in which Baxterians disguise their real sentiments from the fact that they wish to keep rank among the old writers who held particular redemption. They profess, indeed, to believe in all the five points, while they in effect deny each of them, and have struck out for themselves a middle path if such a thing might be. They will not say that Christ died equally for every man, as the General Baptists do, neither will they boldly say Christ died only for the elect, and designed to save them and no more. 

But what benefit does the world receive from all this confusion? Fuller says the elect only are all saved, and yet if any of the non-elect should believe, there is an atonement for them; but still, he says, the non-elect are left to perish in their fallen condition. Do the souls of men gain any advantage from this sophistical medium? Not one more gains salvation. The advantage, however, is not small to the preachers and their congregations; the first are well paid, and the second are respectable. And for these things will they set forth the redemption of Christ as the most unjust and deceptive redemption that could have been accomplished. For they represent it to have been obtained for the whole world, and the captives left designedly still bound in the chains of slavery! And they preach an atonement which is never applied, although provided, to remove the guilt of sin!

We trust the importance of preaching the truth only to our fellow-creatures will be a sufficient guarantee of our readers’ attention a little further, while we say a few words on the Synod’s judgment concerning the 5th and last point, viz., The Final Perseverance of the Saints, and then glance at the translator’s part of the book, and so come to a close.

The 1st and 3rd articles on the saints’ final perseverance are as follows:

“Those whom God according to his own purpose calleth unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, and regenerateth through the Holy Spirit, he maketh them free indeed, and he liberateth them indeed in this life from the dominion and servitude of sin; but not entirely from the flesh and the body of sin. (Jn. 8:86; Rom. 6:3; Gal. 5:1; 1 Pet.5:10; Rom. 7)”

“On account of the remains of indwelling sin, and moreover, on account of the temptations of the world and Satan, converted persons could not continue in a state of grace if they were left to their own powers; but God is faithful, who having once gathered them together into Christ by his grace, mercifully confirmeth them in the same, even unto the end. (1 Cor. 1:9; 1 Pet. 1:5; Jn. 13:1, &c.)”

The perseverance of the saints in grace to glory is a most sweet and comfortable portion of God’s truth, and shines at times like the beams of the sun on the pathway of the weary pilgrim, cheering his soul onward in the rough and rugged course he has to travel. It is evident this doctrine was firmly held by the assembly at Dort as one of the “Five Points;” but the greater part of the articles set forth under this head are far from being clear on the subject. They speak as though the people of God, after having been once set free, were removed beyond the reach of soul conflict with sin and Satan resisting their progress at every step they take. In the words above they do own the saints are “not entirely freed from the flesh and the body of sin;” but soul conflict is more than that. What is the struggle between grace and sin but a deadly combat in which these two are engaged? “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. And these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.” (Gal. 5:17.)

Take, for instance, unbelief, the most obstinate, stout, and deadly foe under which man is held. Most people treat it as if it were the easiest thing possible to put on one side; and it is made the duty of every man to perform acts of faith on which the soul’s salvation, peace, and comfort depend. But could unbelief be put away and overcome, the greatest and worst enemy would be under the feet of man. Instead of this, the children of God themselves groan, being burdened with unbelief and fears. Does not unbelief make the saints stagger at the promise? And it is only by strong faith, which is the gift of God, that the weak are strengthened and empowered to “walk in the steps of that faith of their father Abraham.”

Such is the strength of sin that it has overcome angels and men; and it is proved in this war that it would finally triumph over the children of God, were it not for the power of Christ. So says the 8th article of the Synod:

“Yet it is not by their own merits or powers or strength, but by the sure and gratuitous mercy of God, they obtain this blessing, that they cannot totally and finally fall away from the faith and grace and favour of God.”…

God has said that grace shall reign (Rom. 5:20, 21; 4:14); therefore the final perseverance of the saints is fixed, and is of the Lord alone. And where sin and unbelief overcome men finally God has never given invincible grace.

Now unbelief is a discredit of the truth and belief of a lie. If the “Five Points” contain the great principles of truth, those who deny them are unbelievers, let them believe what they may. We are persuaded that tens of thousands are exhorting others to believe, who are themselves unbelievers. Every Arminian in heart is an unbeliever; for his Christ is not the Christ of the Bible. Neither is God’s Christ owned by any who in heart believe that the atonement was made for persons who never receive the benefit of it. It seems to us surprising that any man can call himself an admirer of both Toplady and Wesley. One may pare down Toplady, and dress up Wesley, and try to make two extremes meet; but when all is done, it is neither the one nor the other that forms the strange amalgamation. Toplady still remains, in his works, a stern rebuker of Wesleyanism, and Wesley a violent opposer of the truths taught by Toplady, and which were also held prominently by the Synod of Dort. We feel sure of this, after having waded through the “Judgment of the Synod” on all the “Five Points,” that the members of the Belgic reformed churches were not Baxterians, and that Baxterians have no quarter given them by the Synod.

We will now turn our attention to the book as a whole. Mr. Owen Jones, the translator, is the son of a Welsh clergyman, and appears to retain all the fiery animation of his race. He was in early life a Methodist, and to this day he is far from being clear of Arminian doctrine, the very doctrine all the Belgic churches united together to denounce. He has written a wordy and lengthy preface, and an address to the “church of God,” whether in the “Church of England,” or Nonconformists, specially naming some of the most ardent upholders of Baxterian views. The preface and address seem to come upon us like rolling waves of the sea, wave upon wave, until we are fairly out of breath with attempting to keep pace with the writer. That the dregs of Arminianism are still unpurged the following will prove:

“Now, poor sinner, believe in Jesus. Behold the bleeding Lamb! Behold the Lamb of God! Draw near the cross. Thou art a lost sinner. Cry to him out of the depths, and say unto him, ‘O Lord, save me, or I perish. Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.’ May the Lord, poor sinner, call thee by his grace; and may the Lord Jesus Christ himself give thee grace, that thou mayest turn to the Lord Jesus by praying; and daily search his Word, and never rest content until thou dost find the Lord.”

The italics are ours. Place this beside one of the articles of the Church of England, which the writer of the above professes to be the truth: “Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Spirit are not pleasing to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the school authors say) deserve grace of congruity. Yea, rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.” (Art. xiii., Church of England.) Mr. Jones plainly exhorts dead sinners to perform acts before having received the grace of Christ; and all acts done in such a state are “works of the flesh,” and “are not pleasing to God.” (Rom. 8:8.) He exhorts sinners to believe who are destitute of faith, and without the powers of life; they are asked to “look on Christ” while deprived of sight; they are invited to “draw near” while they are without the power of motion; they are told to cry to God for salvation before they have any knowledge of being lost; and after the sinner has been exhorted to perform all this task, the Lord is desired to do it for him. If the last part of the quotation above had stood alone, that is, the simple prayer that God would do it for the poor sinner, we would have endorsed the desire. To require the sinner to perform the impossible task is unscriptural, and in the same breath to pray God to do it is out of place. If any one were enabled to accomplish the work Mr. Jones lays upon him, we should say he is born again.

We fully believe Mr. Jones possesses the life of God in his soul, and on this ground we are sorry to see him spend his strength in following up Arminian principles, while professedly refuting them. We desire to point out to him this inconsistency, in the hope that he may be able to see the unscriptural character of such language. Whether he is aware of it or not we cannot say, but it is the core of Baxterianism.

Further, a man is known by the company he keeps. Some persons whom Mr. Jones highly extols in these pages, say they have nothing to do with contradictions in doctrine; they take the Bible as they find it, and preach a Calvinistic sermon when they meet with a Calvinistic text, and an Arminian sermon when they find an Arminian text. But how can persons who use the following words find an Arminian texy?

“By Arminianism I mean those doctrines taught by those confederacies of unregenerate men unto whom is given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and which opens its mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his Name, and his tabernacle, and them which dwell in heaven. I mean that doctrine which exalts itself above the Scriptures of truth and above God. By Arminianism I mean the doctrine of those who teach that there are thousands of those of whom Christ said, ‘Behold I, and the children which thou hast given me,’ now in hell. By Arminianism I mean the doctrine of those who deny the virtue of the blood of the Lamb by teaching that there are thousands who have found the Lord Jesus, and whose hearts have been sprinkled by the Holy Ghost with the blood of sprinkling, now in hell, by which accursed doctrine (Gal. 1) they make God a liar, and do pour contempt upon the blood of Christ.” (P. 29.)

We will ourselves endorse this paragraph. But Baxterianism is an attempt to blend together the gospel of the grace of God and Arminianism; which is to make God a liar, who has said, “The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” (Rom. 11:7.) There are only two characters, “the elect,” and “the rest” who are blinded; the former under the covenant of grace, and the latter under the covenant of works. All these universal exhortationists are working hard to blend grace and works together. The Lord’s parable of the marriage of the king’s son is taken for a warrant, and supposed to be a proof of their vain commission. But we defy any one to prove the divine authority of universal exhortations from that parable; for it is evident the man without a wedding garment had no right there; and when asked, “How earnest thou in hither?” he was “speechless.” Had he been called to the feast, he could not have been speechless. The reply would have been ready: “Thy servants invited me; they said every one might come if they would, it was open for all.” But he was speechless. Neither could he say, “I have been told that there is an objective fulness in the satisfaction of Christ, sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to believe; and I have obeyed the call, and come to the feast.” Here we see the objective fulness did not meet the man’s case; and that “sinners as sinners” are invited to come to Christ in their unregeneracy is a delusion, seeing here is one cast out for lack of righteousness.

We have carefully pointed out the merits and demerits of the book under review; and upon due consideration we have found it is of value as a testimony against Baxterianism. We think it may be of some advantage to ministers of the gospel, that they make themselves well acquainted with the “Five Points,” which have been and are now so much misconstrued and perverted, if not openly denied. We hope what we have written will have prepared the way, and be a guard against the few objectionable expressions it contains. On the other hand, they will find in its pages in the words of the principal reformed churches of Europe, of 1618, clear statements and testimonies of the doctrines of Particular Redemption and Election. The importance of the subject and the dangerous effects of ministers’ falling into Baxterian contradictions must alone be an apology for the length of this review.