Robert Letham (1947–) on the Compromise at Dort

Thirdly, controversy [at Dort] raged over the extent of the atonement. Martinius, one of the Bremen delegation, as well as Davenant and Ward of the English delegation wished to stress the universal significance of Christ's death. Their language proved unacceptable to many and the resultant disagreement threatened to stall the Synod's progress and even to destroy its hopes of success. The English delegation made hasty consultation with the authorities at home. Eventually, they were instrumental in encouraging agreement and effecting an ingenious compromise that did justice to the universal sufficiency of Christ's death in a way calculated to win the support of Martinius, Ward and Davenant, while at the same time safe-guarding the orthodox concern for the particularity and efficacy of the intent of the atonement.¹³ Consequently, in the second head of doctrine, the Canons devote four sections to the universal significance of Christ's death. It is an atonement abundantly sufficient for the sins of the whole world.¹⁴ The value of Christ's death is infinite both because of who he is and what he endured.¹⁵ Therefore, the promise of the gospel, as it focuses on Christ and his death, should be proclaimed to all men without exception.¹⁶ The unbelief of man is attributable in no way to any supposed defect or limitation in the death of Christ but is fully man's own responsibility.¹⁷ Only then do the Canons move on briefly to refer to the intent of the atonement. God intends that the efficacy of Christ's death should be extended to the elect.¹⁸ God's purpose will be accomplished and the elect will receive salvation.¹⁹ Such a statement is nothing if not eirenic. Its balance leans, if anything, in the opposite direction from popular caricatures of limited atonement. Together with the statements on infralapsarianism, Dort is faced by an extreme hard-line option and firmly rejects it, choosing instead a moderate course acceptable to the bulk of international Reformed opinion.²⁰
_______________
13. See Godfrey, pp. 135–269.
14. Canons 2, 3 in Schaff, Creeds, 3:561.
15. Canons 2, 4 in Ibid.
16. Canons 2, 5 in Ibid.
17. Canons 2, 6 in Schaff, Creeds, 3:562.
18. Canons 2, 8 in Ibid.
19. Canons 2, 9, in Ibid.
20. Kendall's characterization of Dort as rubber-stamping Bezan theology is misguided. Beza was a thoroughgoing supralapsarian; Dort is, almost to a man, infralapsarian. Beza disliked the distinction between the universal sufficiency and limited efficacy of the atonement because he thought it weakened the emphasis on the particularity of redemption; Dort stresses the universal scope of the atonement. See Kendall, pp. 175–177.

Robert W. A. Letham, Saving Faith and Assurance in Reformed Theology: Zwingli to the Synod of Dort, 2 vols. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Aberdeen, 1979), 326–327.

[Note: The pagination of Letham's 1979 edition of Kendall's book (or his D.Phil thesis submitted to Oxford in 1976) is different from my 1997 Paternoster edition. I can see where Kendall on page 210 characterizes Westminster teaching as virtually "rubber-stamping Bezan theology," as Letham calls it (in footnote #20 above), but I don't yet see where Kendall makes that claim about Dort.]

Stephen Strehle on the Diversity and Compromise at the Synod of Dort on the Subject of the Atonement

Now since there was a heterogeneity of opinions concerning the second article, not simply between delegations, but also among them, a certain amount of compromise became imperative. The Golden Remains of John Hales, for example, gives indications of a serious split among the English constituency over this article.[1] Two of the delegates, John Davenant and Samuel Ward, held a strong unlimited position, similar to that of Martinius', and Davenant in particular would rather have "his right-hand cut off" than change his position.[2] The other delegates were essentially limited in their conception of the atonement, but not so vehemently and dramatically dogmatic.[1] Among the areas of conflict were the following: the received distinction that Christ has sufficiently died for all, non secundum proprietatem redemptionis,[2] the statement that Christ did pay actu a price for any except the elect,[3] and the meaning of the phrase "totius mundi" in both the Scriptures and The Thirty-Nine Articles.[4] Yet the need for compromise prevailed upon them,[5] and a mutually agreeable statement upon the subject was finally ascertained, with the result that both factions were pacified.

To carry this matter further, the English delegation not only achieved unanimity among themselves, but also cultivated the cause of compromise and moderation among the entire Synod.[1] This policy was in accordance with instructions from the homeland, to conform to the received distinction and restriction, yet to provide for as general a proposition as possible[2] The task was not insurmountable though, since expectations and desires for the success of the Synod were running high among almost all involved. Some, it is true, were not ashamed of displaying open hostility toward opponents--Gomarus in particular at one point challenging Martinius to a duel.[3] Nevertheless, through the work of such ecumenists as George Carleton[4] and the political clout of England,[5] the English were successful in their endeavors, and advanced this cause among the rest of the Synod.
_______________
1. Hales, Golden Remains, pp. 470, 577. cf. Harrison, Arminianism, pp. 336–37. The delegation of Bremen was so divided that, as was already seen, they submitted separate statements to the Synod.
2. Ibid., pp. 577–78, 581.

1. Ibid., pp. 471, 577–78.
2. Ibid., p. 476: "Primo, An retinenda sit illa distinctio quae receptissima est apud Reformatos Doctores, quemque Episcopus Sarisburiensis astruit, pag. 35. & sequentibus, mortuus est pro omnibus secundum sufficientiam seu magnitudinem pretii, non secundum proprietatem redemptionis, quidam putant non retinendum esse quia putant sic sufficienter dici posse mortuum pro Diabolis."
3. Ibid.: "Secundo, Contravertitur de hac propositione. Christus obtulit se pro omnibus, seu persolvit redemptionis pro omnibus: quidam putant sensum esse, persolvit pretium quod sufficit pro omnibus, non autem actu solvit pretium illud nisi pro redimendis electis: alii putant hanc expositionem, incommodam, quia putant commentarium hunc verba ipsa destruere. Ea etenim putant sequi Christum quidem habuisse pretium in numerate, quod persolutum sufficisset omnibus redimendis; verum Christum non persolvisse actu pretium illud, aut factum esse propitiationem pro peccatis totius mundi."
4. Ibid., p. 477: "Tertio, Contravertitur de sensu horum verborum, totius mundi quidam putant intelligi de singulis hominibus: alii de solis electis." cf. Ibid., pp. 471, 586, 588. The Thirty-Nine Articles XXXI: "The offering of Christ once made, is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole worlde, both originall and actuall."
5. Ibid., p. 578. The need for compromise is certainly a contributing factor to the inexplicitness of the pronouncements of many of the delegations.

1. Ibid., pp. 517, 522. Calder, Memoirs, p. 237.
2. Ibid., pp. 512–13: "Our Judgment in the second article, is already read in the Synod, so we must study to frame our selves to our directions from England, in making of the Canons: my Lord his Grace's Letter is to have us conform our selves to the received distinction and restriction, with which his Grace acquainted his Majesty and received approbation from him: but I must needs say, that the directions which your Lordship hath sent from Secretary Nanton do seem to will us to be as favourable to the general Propositions as may be, giving as little offence to the Lutherans as we can; which Counsel in my poor judgment we have in our Theses already followed." Davenant felt that if the Contra-Remonstrants could be tempered in this matter, the Lutherans could be more easily won over to the Augustinian doctrine of predestination (Ibid., p. 591) cf. Brandt, Reformation (1725), 2:499, 690–92.
3. Ibid., pp. 455–56. cf. Ibid., pp. 480, 486–87, Brandt, Reformation (1725), 2:478–80, 482, 497–98.
4. Ibid., p. 456.
5. Godfrey mentions three motivations for compromise: 1) the need for a unanimous decision at Dort, 2) the final form of the Canons was to be stated, and 3) the desire to placate the English delegation, since they were a strong ally of the United Provinces and the largest Reformed Church (Godfrey, "Tensions," pp. 254f).

Stephen Alan Strehle, The Extent of the Atonement Within the Theological Systems of the Sixteenth and Seventheenth Centuries (ThD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980), 236–238.

Robert Godfrey on the Concerns of the Moderates at Dort

The broader concerns influencing the moderate group, composed of Martinius, Davenant and Ward, were quite different [from the strict delegations]. The main theological motive of the moderate group could also be called a concern for Reformed catholicity, but the moderates had quite a different vision of Reformed catholicity from that of their strict colleagues. For the moderates, catholicity encompassed more than a clear rejection of the Remonstrant heterodoxy. All the moderates did join in a fundamental rejection of the Remonstrant position, yet they felt that the threat to the Reformed faith was not exclusively the threat of the heterodox. They feared that the strict orthodox erred in using some novel theological expressions which tended to cut them off from the tradition of Christendom. The moderates contended that an excessively rigorous rejection of the universal significance of the death of Christ would simply feed Roman Catholic and Lutheran charges that the Reformed were sectarian. The moderates perceived Reformed catholicity in terms of the continuity of Reformed doctrine with the whole history of the Church.

This moderate concern focused on a particular doctrinal point: the importance of the universal offer of the Gospel. The Christian preacher must be able to declare the offer of salvation unreservedly to all who would believe. The moderates claimed that the sincere offer of the Gospel could only be undergirded by a broad statement on the sufficiency of Christ's death. Only such a statement, the moderates argued, would insure the continuity of the Reformed Church with the patristic and medieval history of the Church and guard against any charge of sectarianism.

W. Robert Godfrey, Tensions within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618–1619 (PhD dissertation, Stanford University, 1974), 231–232.

Samuel Ward (1577–1640): The "Semi-Arminian" Synodist

It is evident, however, that their [the English divines] unwearied labours in softening the synodal decrees, and the moderation of their conciliar conduct, had rendered them objects of suspicion to many in the Synod [at Dort]. Dr Ward, in a letter to Archbishop Usher says:—

We had somewhat to do when we came to frame canons with the provincials, and some of the exteri touching some points, especially touching the second Article. Some of us were held by some [as] half Remonstrants, for extending the oblation made to the Father to all, and for holding sundry effects thereof offered serio, and some really communicated to the reprobate: I had somewhat to do with a principal man on this point: somewhat passed between us privately. We were careful that nothing should be defined which might gainsay the Confession of the Church of England, which was effected, for that they were desirous to have all things in the Canons defined unanimi consensu.

From Morris Fuller's The Life, Letters & Writings of John Davenant. (London: Methuen & Co. 1897), 90.

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB

If you hold to a moderate view of Christ's death and ground the "serious offers" of the gospel upon his oblation made to the Father for all, be prepared to be looked upon suspiciously, and to be slandered as either an Arminian or semi-Arminian ("half remonstrant"). It's nothing new. Samuel Ward, James Ussher and Ezekiel Culverwell (and many others) were all treated that way.

Hans Boersma on Richard Baxter (1615–1691) and Moïse Amyraut (1596–1664)

The view of Baxter as an Amyraldian theologian needs some modification, especially in light of the view that he did not derive his position on the extent of the atonement from Moyse Amyraut. When, in his Parænesis ad ædificatores Imperii in Imperio (1656), Lewis Du Moulin denounces Amyraut's theology, he comments that "in England only one Baxter is exceedingly pleased with his method." Baxter denies being a proselyte of Amyraut, saying that "this unus Baxterus did write a Book for Universal Redemption in this middle sens[e], before ever hee saw either Amyraldus, Davenant, or any Writer (except Dr Twisse) for that way ..."

Yet, Baxter is not adverse to the views of John Cameron and Amyraut on redemption. On the contrary, when John Tombes reproaches Baxter for his view on universal redemption, Baxter replies: "And to tel[l] you freely my thoughts, that is the point of universal Redemption wherein I think Amyrald doth best, and in that ... I approve of most he saith." What is more, when Baxter distinguishes the absolute promise of the first grace for the elect and the legal moral donation for all, he specifically appeals to Cameron, Amyraut, Davenant, Samuel Ward, and the Canons of Dort for support. Thus, while it does not appear that Amyraut had an immediate impact on Baxter's views on the extent of the atonement, there is an obvious congeniality between the two authors.

Hans Boersma, A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter's Doctrine of Justification in Its Seventeenth-Century Context of Controversy (Vancouver, BC: Regent, 2004), 197–198.