John Davenant's Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology) 9780197555149, 9780197555156, 9780197555170, 9780197555163, 0197555144

Citation preview

John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism

OX F O R D S T U D I E S I N H I S T O R IC A L T H E O L O G Y Series Editor Richard A. Muller, Calvin Theological Seminary Founding Editor David C. Steinmetz † Editorial Board Robert C. Gregg, Stanford University George M. Marsden, University of Notre Dame Wayne A. Meeks, Yale University Gerhard Sauter, Rheinische Friedrich-​Wilhelms-​Universität Bonn Susan E. Schreiner, University of Chicago John Van Engen, University of Notre Dame Robert L. Wilken, University of Virginia THE REGENSBURG ARTICLE 5 ON JUSTIFICATION Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? Anthony N. S. Lane AUGUSTINE ON THE WILL A Theological Account Han-​luen Kantzer Komline THE SYNOD OF PISTORIA AND VATICAN II Jansenism and the Struggle for Catholic Reform Shaun Blanchard CATHOLICITY AND THE COVENANT OF WORKS James Ussher and the Reformed Tradition Harrison Perkins THE COVENANT OF WORKS The Origins, Development, and Reception of the Doctrine J. V. Fesko RINGLEADERS OF REDEMPTION How Medieval Dance Became Sacred Kathryn Dickason REFUSING TO KISS THE SLIPPER Opposition to Calvinism in the Francophone Reformation Michael W. Bruening FONT OF PARDON AND NEW LIFE John Calvin and the Efficacy of Baptism Lyle D. Bierma THE FLESH OF THE WORD The extra Calvinisticum from Zwingli to Early Orthodoxy K. J. Drake JOHN DAVENANT’S HYPOTHETICAL UNIVERSALISM A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy Michael J. Lynch

John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy M IC HA E L J. LY N C H

1

3 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2021 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Lynch, Michael J. (Michael Joseph), 1984– author. Title: John Davenant’s hypothetical universalism : a defense of Catholic and Reformed orthodoxy / by Michael J. Lynch. Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2021] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020056001 (print) | LCCN 2020056002 (ebook) | ISBN 9780197555149 (hardback) | ISBN 9780197555156 (updf) | ISBN 9780197555170 (oso) | ISBN 9780197555163 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Davenant, John, approximately 1572–1641. | Church of England—Biography. | Church of England. Diocese of Salisbury. Bishop. | Synod of Dort (1618-1619 : Dordrecht, Netherlands) | Universalism. | Reformed Church—Doctrines—History. | Church—Catholicity. | Bishops—England—Biography. Classification: LCC BX5199 .D23 L96 2021 (print) | LCC BX5199 .D23 (ebook) | DDC 230/.3092—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020056001 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020056002 DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197555149.001.0001 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America

For Kelly

Contents Acknowledgments  Abbreviations 

ix xi

1.  Prolegomena 

1



1.1  Introduction  1.2  Survey of Literature  1.3  Definition of Terms 

1 4 13



1.4  Thesis  1.5  Outline of Argument 

18 19



1.3.1  The Term “Hypothetical Universalism”  1.3.2  Other Terms 

13 17

2. The Extent of Christ’s Work from the Early Church to Gottschalk  23

2.1  Introduction  2.2  Patristic Period 

23 28



2.3  The Early Medieval Period  2.4  Scholasticism and the Lombardian Formula  2.5  Conclusion 

41 43 46



2.2.1  Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and Semi-​Pelagianism  2.2.2  Faustus, Lucidus, and the Synod of Arles 

29 40

3. The Lombardian Formula in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Century  48

3.1  Introduction  3.2  The Early Modern Period and the Lombardian Formula 

48 50



3.3  Conclusion 

68



3.2.1  3.2.2  3.2.3  3.2.4 

Reformation Period  Late Sixteenth-​Century Lutheran and Reformed Polemics  Jacob Arminius and William Perkins  The Hague Conference of 1611 

4. John Davenant and the Synod of Dordt 

4.1  Introduction  4.2 English Hypothetical Universalism and the Precursors to the Synod of Dordt  4.2.1 James Ussher and the Emergence of English Hypothetical Universalism  4.2.2  Bishop Overall’s Via Media 

50 53 58 61

70

70 72 74 79

viii Contents

4.3  The British Delegation and the Second Main Point of Doctrine 

80



4.4  Conclusion 

99



4.3.1  The British Suffrage  4.3.2 The British Influence on the Formation of the Second Main Doctrine 

82 85

5.  John Davenant on the Extent of Christ’s Atoning Work 

101



107 113



5.1  Introduction  5.2  Davenant’s Interlocutors: A Taxonomy of Positions  5.3  Contra the Contra-​Remonstrants 



5.4  Contra the Remonstrants 





5.3.1  Universal Cause of Salvation  5.3.2  Ordained Sufficiency 

5.4.1  Christ Died Effectually for the Elect Alone  5.4.2 Actual Reconciliation and Remission of Sins Conditioned on Faith and Repentance  5.4.3  No Obligation to Provide the Means of Application to All 

5.5  Conclusion 

6.  John Davenant’s Covenant Theology 

6.1  Introduction  6.2  Covenant in John Davenant’s Theology 



6.3  Conclusion 



101 102 107 122 122 124 126

130

132

132 133

6.2.1  Davenant and the Covenant of Works  134 6.2.2  Davenant, the Covenant of Grace, and the Evangelical Covenant  135 6.2.3  Absolute Covenant  143

145

7.  Davenant on the Will of God and the Divine Decrees 

147



149 152 153



7.1  Introduction  7.2  General Contours Regarding the Divine Will 



7.3  God’s Will and “For Whom Christ Died”  7.4  Conclusion 

7.2.1  Voluntas Simplicis Complacentiae  7.2.2  Voluntas Providentialis  7.2.3  Voluntas Beneplaciti 

147 149

154 159

8.  Conclusion 

161

Notes  Bibliography  Index 

163 225 249

Acknowledgments Given the scope of this project, there are undoubtedly many people and institutions I must thank. First, I want to thank my professors at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi, who encouraged me to pursue further graduate study: Derek Thomas, Miles Van Pelt, Bruce Baugus, and Andrew Hoffecker, among others. Special thanks to Guy Waters, for whom I was a teaching assistant and who provided consistent encouragement along the way in my pursuit of further education. During my studies at RTS, I also gained some invaluable friendships. The Consistory of David Barry, David Irving, and Ryan Biese has been a consistent source of theological inquiry from which I have drawn extensively in this study. Since the commencement of my studies at Calvin Theological Seminary in 2012 I have regularly attended four different churches. I am thankful for Pastors Iain Wright, Todd Wagenmaker, John Currie, Michael Mattossian, and David Landow. They have each, in their own way, fed my soul with word and sacrament. My time at Calvin was the most fruitful period of my scholarly development. Words can hardly express how much I enjoyed being able to sit at the feet of Richard Muller and his masterful treatment of early modern theology. He is the reason I chose to pursue a PhD at Calvin Seminary, and I was not and am not disappointed in that decision. Finally, Lyle Bierma was the best advisor a student could have. His feedback and scholary expertise ably guided me through every step of the dissertation process. Calvin Theological Seminary’s program was nothing short of exceptional. There are a couple other institutions for which I must acknowledge my gratitude. Hekman Library ought to be known as a world-​class theological library. Not only is their collection impressive, including the Meeter Center for Calvin Studies, but Karin Maag and Paul Fields are experts in their field. Many thanks to them. A couple years ago I was granted the nearly month-​ long Advanced Theological Studies Fellowship at the Theological University in Kampen, Netherlands. This fellowship gave me time to work on what ended up as the third chapter of this book. I am especially grateful for the feedback and encouragement I received from Dolf te Velde on one of the chapters.

x Acknowledgments There have been various other folk who have helped me in one way or another. My colleagues at Delaware Valley Classical School have consistently been there to support the completion of this study. Special thanks to Nicholas DiDonato, my colleague at DVCS who read through much of this study and provided excellent feedback. Many of those familiar with the field of Reformed orthodoxy have helped me with this study: among them, Albert Gootjes, Jordan Ballor, Jake Griesel, David Ponter, Tony Byrne, Donald Sinnema, Chase Vaughn, Lee Gatiss, Danny Hyde, Takayuki Yagi, Mark Jones, Richard Snoddy, Harrison Perkins, Jonathon Beeke, and David Noe. Penultimately, I cannot but thank my dear wife, to whom this study is dedicated. Since my time at RTS, we have had five children, Virginia, Savannah, Abilene, James, and Joseph, and lived in four different cities. She has been a constant bulwark. She also survived reading out loud this entire work! Finally, I am most thankful for my savior Jesus Christ, who has paid for all my sins with his precious blood and set me free from the tyranny of the devil. His common benevolence and special grace have sustained me thus far. To him be the glory, power, and dominion. Amen.

Abbreviations Acta Synodi Nationalis, In nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi, Autoritate Illustr, et Praepotentum DD. Ordinum Generalium Foederati Belgii Provinciarum, Dordrechti Habitae Anno MDCXVIII et MDCXIX. Accedunt Plenissima, de Quinque Articulis, Theologorum Judicia. Leiden: Isaac Elzevirus, 1620. BDSD Anthony Milton, ed. The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–​1619). Suffolk, UK: Church of England Record Society/​Boydell Press, 2005. CT Thomas Aquinas, Corpus Thomisticum: Sancti Thomae de Aquino Opera Omnia. Edited by Enrique Alarcon. http://​www.corpusthomisticum. org/​iopera.html DD John Davenant, Dissertationes Duae: Prima de Morte Christi, Quatenus ad omnes extendatur, Quatenus ad solos Electos restringatur. Altera de Praedestinatione & Reprobatione. . . . Quibus subnectitur ejusdem D. Davenantii Sententia de Gallicana controversia. Cambridge: Roger Daniels, 1650. FHHCSH David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson, eds. From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013. GR John Hales, Golden Remains, of the Ever Memorable Mr. John Hales . . . With Additions from the Authours own Copy, Viz. Sermons & Miscellanies. Also Letters and Expresses Concerning the Synod of Dort, (not before Printed,) From an Authentick Hand. London: Thomas Newcomb, 1673. PRRD Richard A. Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725. 2nd ed. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003. Acta

1 Prolegomena 1.1  Introduction In 1631, Bishop James Ussher wrote to Samuel Ward regarding the so-​called quinquarticular controversy, “For the Arminian questions I desire never to read any more than my lord of Salisbury’s [i.e., John Davenant’s] lectures touching predestination, and Christ’s death.”1 Some years later, Ussher continued to express his admiration for Davenant’s theological judgment regarding the Arminian controversy: “I have met with none that hath treated of those points with that perspicuity and judgment which he hath done.”2 Effusive praise for Davenant’s work was not limited to conformist bishops in the Church of England; John Arrowsmith, Westminster divine and Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, likened John Davenant to Augustine!3 Born in 1572 in London, Davenant was admitted as a fifteen-​year-​old into Queen’s College, Cambridge. In 1609, he earned his doctorate of divinity and was appointed Lady Margaret Professor of Theology at Cambridge—​one of the two senior divinity chairs at the university. In 1618, he was chosen by King James to serve as an English delegate to the Synod of Dordt. Soon after his return, Davenant was elected bishop of Salisbury, in which office he served until his death in 1641. The paucity of studies examining the life and work of Bishop John Davenant is little indication of his theological impact upon seventeenth-​century Reformed theology.4 Davenant was a significant influence on Bishop Ussher and various other members of the Church of England as well as nonconformist theologians such as Richard Baxter, who recommended Davenant’s works to even the “poorest” student of theology.5 His theological influence also reached across the European continent, as evidenced by the Dutch Reformed theologian Gisbertus Voetius and his Exercitia et Bibliotheca Studiosi Theologiae, wherein at multiple points Voetius commended Davenant’s writings to the theological student.6 Davenant continued to be read throughout the seventeenth century. For example, his name appears on the English nonconformist Thomas Doolittle’s reading list (c. 1685) for his private academy.7 John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism. Michael J. Lynch, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197555149.003.0001

2  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism Furthermore, Davenant’s De Morte Christi was republished in 1683, and his writings were regularly cited by English theologians into the eighteenth century.8 Davenant’s theology, while representing a significant strand of Reformed orthodoxy, was not without controversy in his own day. His doctrine of baptism was a minority position among Reformed churches—​even if taught by a significant number of English divines and even, perhaps, the formularies of the Church of England.9 Nonetheless, it has been Davenant’s hypothetical universalism—​his view of the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death—​for which he is most well-​known and for which he has been most criticized. This is undoubtedly one reason why scholarship on Davenant has focused almost exclusively on his role at the Synod of Dordt, where his (along with Samuel Ward’s) theological position regarding the sufficiency of Christ’s death, in contradistinction to many of his fellow Reformed contemporaries, became most acutely visible during Davenant’s own lifetime.10 In addition to his work at Dordt, Davenant wrote a whole treatise defending his hypothetical universalism, De Morte Christi. This work, which most likely began as lectures at Cambridge around the time of the Synod of Dordt in 1619, was ready for publication by 1628, though, significantly, it was published only posthumously, in 1650, in a work titled Dissertationes Duae, which included another treatise of his on predestination and reprobation.11 Davenant also gave a brief snapshot of his hypothetical universalism in his response to John Cameron’s own version of the theory, appended to Davenant’s Dissertationes Duae, titled De Gallicana controversia sententia.12 Near the end of Davenant’s life, in a book authored by the German Reformed minister Herman Hildebrand, who himself defended a form of hypothetical universalism, a letter of Davenant’s was published wherein he defended the orthodoxy of Hildebrand’s hypothetical universalism.13 Even a cursory reading of these three sources, representing two decades of Davenant’s thought on the topic, prove that from his time at the Synod of Dordt until his death in 1641, his view on the extent of Christ’s work remained substantially unchanged.14 Davenant’s hypothetical universalism garnered some amount of controversy from his fellow Reformed theologians in the early modern period.15 Yet it was not until the past two centuries or so that historians and theologians subjected his theology, usually his hypothetical universalism, to significant criticism. There are at least a few underlying reasons for such criticism, criticism that often construes Davenant’s hypothetical universalism as being

Prolegomena  3 outside the pale of Reformed orthodoxy. First, scholars have often too narrowly defined the Reformed tradition, leaving theological positions that fall within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy outside the tradition. This tendency to narrow the Reformed tradition is on display in debates among scholars from two fronts: (1) the “Calvin vs. the Calvinists” debate and (2) the dispute among (principally) Anglican historians about the theological nature of early modern England, whether it was Calvinist, Arminian, or some via media.16 Only recently have scholars come to appreciate the diversity of the Reformed tradition in the early modern period and how early modern English theology fits into that broad tradition, albeit at some points uncomfortably.17 Second, scholars studying the doctrine of the extent of Christ’s death have often not given due attention to the history of the doctrine as it developed and then was modified during the various theological debates from Augustine on through the early modern period. Too often historians and theologians have presumed an early modern Reformed consensus regarding the Lombardian formula (i.e., “Christ died sufficiently for all; efficiently for the elect”) without noticing the various rejections, modifications, or differing interpretations of the formula.18 Moreover, scholars have been sloppy with their terminology regarding theories of “universal redemption,” “limited atonement,” and terms such as these, disregarding the diversity and wider theological contexts from which such doctrines arose.19 If, as one recent influential work defending definite atonement puts it, the Synod of Dordt gives “the classic statement of definite atonement,” then where does that leave Davenant’s hypothetical universalism, given his approval of the Canons of Dordt on the extent of Christ’s work?20 Is hypothetical universalism a species of definite atonement or a different genus? Finally, modern criticism of Davenant’s theology is in no small measure due to the conflation of pre–​Moïse Amyraut varieties of hypothetical universalism with French Amyraldianism.21 Since the early modern period, historians have deemed English hypothetical universalism as something of a precursor to French Amyraldianism. For example, as early as 1655 David Blondel, a professor of church history at the University of Amsterdam, wrote that Davenant, Joseph Hall, and Ward, along with some non-​English hypothetical universalists, “held the same views which [were] still held” in Blondel’s own time by the “Professors of Saumur,” among others.22 The nineteenth-​ century theologian Alexander Schweizer, whose work on Amyraut is well-​known, explicitly followed Blondel’s interpretation of the history.23 Baxter, undoubtedly a significant influence on English-​speaking

4  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism secondary literature, often conflated the two theological traditions under what he termed “the middle way” of universal redemption.24 Unlike some of the later historians of theology, however, Baxter did, it seems, discern some variety among the several “middle-​way” advocates.25 The nineteenth-​century Scotsman George Smeaton insisted that there was a “wide line of demarcation” to be drawn between French Amyraldianism and the universal redemption position taught by Davenant and Baxter.26 Ignoring Smeaton’s protest, by the twentieth century Davenant’s name was increasingly lumped into the broader class of Amyraldianism or hypothetical universalism typified by the later French theology of the Academy of Saumur.27 Coupled with this conflation of varying hypothetical universalisms has been the general habit among historians and theologians to suggest an uneasy relationship between hypothetical universalism and Reformed orthodoxy. Studies of hypothetical universalism and/​or Amyraldianism have often hinted at or explicitly claimed an Arminianizing propensity in both.28 This tendency in scholarship has fed the conclusion that Davenant’s “moderate” Calvinism, which has at its center his hypothetical universalism, was a step toward Arminianism.29

1.2  Survey of Literature Surprisingly, considering his stature and influence in the early modern period, studies of Davenant’s theology have been relatively sparse. Morris Fuller, Davenant’s only biographer, suggested that due to the scholastic nature of Davenant’s writings and time itself, his influence subsided during the eighteenth century.30 Fuller’s biography, along with the English translations of some of Davenant’s most important works by Josiah Allport, revived interest in Davenant during the nineteenth century.31 Fuller captured well the typical nineteenth-​century portrait of Davenant: In Davenant we have done our best to pourtray the typical Churchman—​ the Churchman of the Primitive Church—​combining something both of the High and Low party of more modern times—​the moderate Anglican—​ a tertium quid, nearer to our Reformers and to the great worthies of our Church than either—​the disciples of the via media, one who has found the old paths and walks therein.32

Prolegomena  5 Yet it was not until the twentieth century that scholars began to examine in greater detail Davenant’s theology and his role in the broader Jacobean church context. The first significant study of Davenant’s theology is found in C. Fitzsimons Allison’s The Rise of Moralism.33 Allison focused exclusively on Davenant’s doctrine of justification as it represented classic Anglican theology over and against Roman Catholicism. W. Robert Godfrey’s 1974 dissertation on the debate over the extent of Christ’s satisfaction at the Synod of Dordt gave significant attention to Davenant’s hypothetical universalism.34 Godfrey claimed that Davenant’s formulation of the atonement “showed no real affinity with the work done later by Amyraut” and, if anything, was “sui generis.”35 Davenant, according to Godfrey, “suggests a new variation on the order of decrees” and “represent[s]‌a significant variation on traditional Reformed formulations,” even if he is not a “precursor of the Amyraldian critique.”36 Because of Davenant’s “novel construction of the order of the decrees,” Godfrey avoided describing Davenant’s own view on the extent of Christ’s satisfaction as “hypothetical universalism.”37 Godfrey’s study notably concluded that the “moderates on the extent of the atonement,” which included Davenant, “triumphed by wresting important concessions from their colleagues” in the final form of the Canons of Dordt.38 In other words, according to Godfrey, Davenant’s position was within the bounds of Dordtian orthodoxy, even if it pushed upon the boundaries of “traditional” Reformed orthodoxy. John Platt’s work on the English delegation’s role at the Synod, published shortly after Godfrey’s study, has also been influential on Davenantian studies, noting the role that irenicism played among the British delegation at Dordt and emphasizing Davenant’s influence on the Second Head of Doctrine (on the death of Christ).39 Sara Jean Clausen’s 1989 dissertation, “Calvinism in the Anglican Hierarchy,” came on the heels of heated discussion and debate among historians over the theological nature of the English Church during Queen Elizabeth’s reign up until the English Civil War. Her study gave attention to Davenant’s soteriology, including his controversial doctrine of the extent of Christ’s atoning work. Clausen attempted to distance herself from earlier (and much briefer) studies of Davenant’s theology and represented Davenant’s theology much in the same way as Fuller did, viz., as both a defense of the “Elizabethan Reformed tradition” as well as “moderate Reformed theology.”40 Yet there are a few important differences in her summation of Davenant’s theology as compared to earlier studies.41 First, Clausen wrongly

6  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism concluded, though not without precedence, that Davenant’s predestinarian theology is supralapsarian as opposed to infra-​or sublapsarian.42 Second, Clausen suggested that Davenant’s theology was in tension with itself, “caught between the necessity of defending Calvinist principles while avoiding many of their logical, dogmatic implications.”43 While Davenant attempted to “carve a moderate path” between the Contra-​Remonstrants and Arminianism, he was not always successful, in Clausen’s judgment.44 Even so, according to Clausen, Davenant was in substantial continuity with “the Reformed principles of the Elizabethan church.”45 Studies of Davenant’s theology also appeared in publications of the Protestant Reformed Church and other unlikely places. For example, Herman Hanko dedicated a chapter in his History of the Free Offer to Davenant’s doctrine of the free offer of the gospel and its relation to the Westminster Assembly.46 Hanko, however, did not give any attention to Davenant’s actual writings. Even so, Hanko followed the work of Paul Helm, claiming that Davenant held to “Amyrauldian views of hypothetical universalism.”47 Hanko’s reading of Davenant was partially driven by the mistaken notion that Davenant was a student of John Cameron at Glasgow College.48 This mistake was perpetuated by Marc D. Carpenter in his 1997 article “A History of Hypo-​Calvinism,” where we are told that Davenant was a student of Cameron and that his hypothetical universalism, which includes the notion of Christ dying for all and the well-​meant offer, is “heresy.”49 Again, although Carpenter’s discussion of Davenant’s theology explicitly relied on Hanko, there is no interaction with Davenant’s own writings. That same year, George Ella responded to Carpenter’s essay arguing that Davenant was rightly deemed a “Jewel of the Reformed churches,” and that the monikers of Davenant’s theology as “hypothetical universalist” or “Amyraldian” are inappropriate.50 The next year, Mark Shand published a two-​ part essay examining Davenant’s life and theology, especially his hypothetical universalism.51 Unlike the works by Carpenter and Hanko, Shand interacted directly with Davenant, arguing from the outset that “Davenant’s views on the atonement were certainly not Reformed nor orthodox.”52 Shand suggested that it was at the Synod of Dordt where Davenant and Ward most notably expressed their novel views on the nature and extent of Christ’s atoning work, striking a “middle course between the Reformed and Arminian positions.”53 Not surprisingly, Shand interpreted the final form of the Canons of Dordt as excluding Davenant’s view:

Prolegomena  7 While from one perspective, it can be asserted that the Canons repudiate expressly the views of Davenant and Ward, it is also evident that the Canons were couched in such terms as to be not overly offensive to any of the delegations present at Dort. This view of the Canons is supported by the fact that all of the delegates, including Franciscus Gomarus and Matthias Martinius, signed their names to the Canons, yet those men were not in agreement with the views of other members of the synod on a number of issues.54

Shand reluctantly acknowledged, however, that “the Canons do not contain a specific statement which categorically denies a universal intent [respecting the death of Christ],” which was “the reason why men such as Davenant and Ward were prepared to append their signatures to the Canons at the close of the synod.”55 After examining Davenant’s role as an English delegate at Dordt, Shand gave a detailed exposition of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism. Focusing particularly on Davenant’s Dissertation on the Death of Christ along with his Judgment on the Gallican Controversy, Shand defended the thesis that Davenant’s hypothetical universalism was in substantial continuity with Amyraut’s hypothetical universalism: “It is the thesis of this paper that although the views of Davenant were not in all respects in accord with those views subsequently expressed by Amyraut, nonetheless Davenant’s views in a practical sense were so similar to those of Amyraut that it is not unreasonable to classify him as an Amyraldian or at least a near Amyraldian.”56 In so doing, Shand remarked that “[i]‌t is worthwhile noting that Amyraut sought to steer a course between the Arminian position and that adopted by the Synod of Dort. He attempted to tone down what he perceived to be the severity of the Calvinism enunciated at Dort. This was also Davenant’s desire.”57 In line with his thesis, Shand concluded that although Davenant’s hypothetical universalism is distinguishable from Amyraut’s, “the overall thrust of the doctrines of Davenant and Amyraut are very similar.”58 It is worth mentioning that Shand never interacts with the writings of Amyraut directly. During this same period, G. Michael Thomas published his dissertation on the extent of the atonement in the early modern period. In this 1997 survey, Thomas devoted a few pages to Davenant’s theology.59 He questioned the prevailing narrative, which he traced to Godfrey’s dissertation, that Davenant’s view on the extent of Christ’s work was something of a novelty.60

8  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism After this flurry of essays in the 1990s, the next significant study of Davenant’s theology came with Jonathan Moore’s dissertation on John Preston and English hypothetical universalism.61 Moore’s work is arguably the most influential investigation of Davenant to date, not so much because of his treatment of Davenant as because of the impact his dissertation more generally has had on scholarship regarding hypothetical universalism. Moore emphasized the necessity of distinguishing between English hypothetical universalism and later French Amyraldianism, unlike earlier studies had done, as we have seen. Further, Moore highlighted the particularly English nature of the hypothetical universalism—​what he called universalismus hypotheticus anglicus—​found in theologians such as Davenant, Preston, and Ussher.62 Finally, Moore’s study very helpfully unpacked the diversity of theological opinion within a broad Calvinistic consensus in the Church of England during Davenant’s period. Yet the work is not without problems. First, Moore did little to situate English hypothetical universalism within the history of doctrine, either in Protestant, Roman Catholic, or pre-​Reformational circles. Second, and a symptom of this first deficiency, he treated hypothetical universalism as a “softening” of the Reformed tradition rather than a “continuation of [certain] trajector[ies]” in early modern Reformed theology present from the very beginning of the Reformation. Richard A. Muller’s remarks on this point in his review of Moore’s work are worth quoting at length: Moore also underestimates the presence of non-​Amyraldian or non-​ speculative forms of hypothetical universalism in the Reformed tradition as a whole and thereby, in the opinion of this reviewer, misconstrues Preston’s position as a “softening” of Reformed theology rather than as the continuation of one trajectory of Reformed thought that had been present from the early sixteenth century onward. Clear statements of nonspeculative hypothetical universalism can be found (as Davenant recognized) in Heinrich Bullinger’s Decades and commentary on the Apocalypse, in Wolfgang Musculus’ Loci communes, in Ursinus’ catechetical lectures, and in Zanchi’s Tractatus de praedestinatione sanctorum, among other places. . . . Although Moore can cite statements from the York conference that Dort “either apertly or covertly denied the universality of man’s redemption” (156), it remains that various of the signatories of the Canons were hypothetical universalists—​not only the English delegation (Carleton, Davenant, Ward, Goad, and Hall) but also [sic] some of the delegates from Bremen and Nassau (Martinius, Crocius, and Alsted)—​that Carleton and the other

Prolegomena  9 delegates continued to affirm the doctrinal points of Dort while distancing themselves form [sic] the church discipline of the Belgic Confession, and that in the course of seventeenth-​century debate even the Amyraldians were able to argue that their teaching did not run contrary to the Canons. In other words, the nonspeculative, non-​Amyraldian form of hypothetical universalism was new in neither the decades after Dort nor a “softening” of the tradition: The views of Davenant, Ussher, and Preston followed out a resident trajectory long recognized as orthodox among the Reformed.63

When Moore examined Davenant more particularly, he presented Davenant’s hypothetical universalism as a via media between Perkinsian Elizabethan theology, exemplified by William Perkins’s theology, and Remonstrant theology.64 After describing areas of discontinuity with mainstream English Calvinism, Moore claimed that “the whole thrust of such a system [i.e., Davenant’s] swings in a potentially Arminian or semi-​Pelagian direction.”65 Moore’s conclusion is that “Davenant advocated a much ‘softer’ Calvinism than his Elizabethan forebears.”66 Not all scholars have agreed with this reading of Davenant. Regrettably overlooked in scholarship is Margo Todd’s 2005 article on the “Calvinisms” of the British delegation at the Synod of Dordt, where she pushed back against the temptation to see Davenant’s hypothetical universalism as tending toward Arminianism.67 Through careful study of the manuscript evidence of Ward during the Synod of Dordt, Todd made a compelling case for Ward’s (and, by extension, Davenant’s) anti-​Remonstrant sentiments and his Calvinistic orthodoxy against the scholarship of Peter White and Peter Lake, who have described the English delegates at Dordt as neither defensive of Reformed theology nor particularly Reformed in their own doctrinal formulations.68 In 2008, Hunter Bailey, in his dissertation on James Fraser of Brea’s doctrine of universal redemption, looked at Davenant’s hypothetical universalism.69 Bailey concluded that Davenant’s form of the “middle-​way . . . was not a half-​way house to Arminianism, nor was it a regurgitation of Cameron and Amyraut’s doctrine of redemption.” Instead, “Davenant’s innovations [were] an addition to the Reformed orthodoxy of Dort, rather than a radical deviation from it. The foundational principles remained the same for both.”70 Resulting from the publication of Moore’s dissertation in 2007, a flurry of studies on hypothetical universalism ensued. Muller, whose work on early modern Reformed orthodoxy had for some time recognized the diversity

10  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism within Reformed theology and even the orthodoxy of Amyraldianism,71 began to lecture and publish on the debates surrounding the extent of Christ’s death.72 Notable in this regard is Muller’s exposition of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism in his Calvin and the Reformed Tradition.73 Distinct from most of the previous studies of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism, Muller, through an examination of Davenant’s De Gallicana controversia sententia and the British delegation’s suffrage at Dordt, highlighted the way in which Davenant distinguished his own view from the father of French Amyraldianism, John Cameron. More broadly, Muller argued that there are not merely two versions of hypothetical universalism—​an Amyraldian and an English variety in the early modern period; rather, there are varieties within non-​Amyraldian hypothetical universalism, as evidenced by Pierre Du Moulin’s hypothetical universalism, which was, at the same time, very distinct from Amyraut’s version.74 Following Moore’s and Muller’s distinction between Amyraldian and non-​ Amyraldian versions of hypothetical universalism is the 2013 compilation of essays in defense of limited atonement, From Heaven He Came and Sought Her.75 The various contributors to the book, generally speaking at least, judged the early modern versions of hypothetical universalism as within the boundaries of Reformed orthodoxy, even if an “awkward cousin in the [Reformed] family.”76 Given the focus of the book, it is not surprising that Davenant’s hypothetical universalism garnered a fair bit of attention. This attention ranges from exegesis of Davenant’s writings to dogmatic dispute with and criticism of his theology. Accordingly, in the opening chapter, the editors (Jonathan Gibson and David Gibson) suggested that Davenant’s hypothetical universalism entails “a division within the will of each person” of the Trinity, resulting in a “confused Christ.”77 Lee Gatiss, in his chapter on the debate over the extent of Christ’s work at Dordt, gave an even-​handed overview of the dispute, which included an emphasis on the British delegation and Davenant in particular.78 Gatiss alleged that the Canons “were framed to enable subscription by Davenant and Ward,” making these two “five-​point” Calvinists.79 In Jonathan Gibson’s essay, Davenant’s theology is criticized for representing God’s special love for the elect as a “mere ‘afterthought’ ” on account of his emphasis on the general love of God.80 Gibson also expanded upon criticism he made in the introductory essay regarding Davenant’s two loves/​intentions of the divine will.81 Donald Macleod likewise gave attention to Davenant’s hypothetical universalism.82 In line with Gibson and Gibson, Macleod found neither Davenant’s

Prolegomena  11 two divine intentions exegetically or dogmatically compelling, nor did he think that Davenant’s conditional decree, by which Christ is said to die for all (on condition of faith), merits what Davenant thought it did.83 Robert Letham, after surveying the various hypothetical universalisms, including Davenant’s, similarly concluded, “In short, the Hypothetical Universalist position, in whatever guise, is inherently incoherent. Moreover, it runs counter to classic Trinitarian theology.”84 Other authors in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her offered criticisms of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism.85 Unfortunately, Davenant’s actual writings are interacted with relatively little.86 Not all recent studies of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism have been so dogmatically critical. Oliver Crisp, in his 2014 book Deviant Calvinism, attempts to defend the cogency of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism from its detractors.87 While admitting that there are “problems that remain for hypothetical universalism . . . shared in common with other versions of Augustinianism, including those that advocate for a definite-​atonement doctrine,” Crisp believes that from a dogmatic perspective, “English hypothetical universalism deserves greater attention than it currently enjoys.”88 Jared Compton has similarly argued that Davenant’s hypothetical universalism demands “careful consideration” and that Davenant “should continue to serve as an important conversation partner.”89 Compton’s essay is valuable for a couple of reasons. First, he keenly perceives areas in which secondary scholarship has overlooked important paradigm-​shifting evidence in Davenant’s Dissertation on the Death of Christ, as, e.g., when Davenant interprets the Lombardian sufficiency-​efficiency formula as English hypothetical universalism!90 Second, Compton provides a nice outline of Davenant’s Dissertation.91 After summarizing Davenant’s argument for hypothetical universalism, Compton concludes his essay identifying areas of supposed ambiguity in Davenant’s thought as well as areas of potential criticism. More recently, David Allen treats of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism in his massive work on the extent of the atonement from a biblical and historical perspective.92 Allen’s work, although often too dogmatic in its conclusions and lacking the critical study of Latin sources and occasionally the necessary depth required of the material, anticipates many lines of argument found in this study.93 The last noteworthy study of Davenant is the work of Hyo Ju Kang.94 Kang’s recent dissertation compares Davenant’s hypothetical universalism

12  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism with Cameron’s version. Kang contends that Davenant’s hypothetical universalism is quite distinct from Cameron’s, and that the former is not a significant forerunner to French Amyraldianism. Kang’s study, although it makes significant strides in explaining Davenant’s hypothetical universalism, especially by exposing and forestalling many of the caricatures of his position, is not without some significant problems of its own. Most problematically, the English prose of his work regularly obscures his argument.95 Methodologically, Kang interprets Davenant with little recourse to the wider theological debates providing the impetus for De Morte Christi, nor does Kang look at the theological sources of Davenant’s thought. The focus, like Moore’s study of Davenant, is largely limited to Davenant’s writings and the Synod of Dordt, as if Davenant were a theological maverick. To be sure, Kang does believe that Davenant’s hypothetical universalism is orthodox because it falls within the bounds of Dordtian orthodoxy, but not because of any continuity with earlier theological formulations. These methodological mistakes lead Kang to make some interpretive errors. For example, Kang thinks that the phrase “the whole world” (totius mundi) in the Canons of Dordt (2.3) is ambiguous.96 On this basis he says, “If it meant the world of all humankind, it would definitely be in line with the positions of Davenant and Cameron.”97 Kang is apparently unaware that all the Dordtian delegates—​even those who unequivocally denied that Christ died for all sufficiently—​would have affirmed that Christ’s death was sufficient to expiate the sins of all human beings because of its infinite value.98 In other words, there is no reason to think that such a reading of that article in the Canons of Dordt would support hypothetical universalism or that it was intentionally ambiguous (allowing for multiple interpretations). In summary, from Davenant the supralapsarian to Davenant the Arminian-​ leaning delegate to Dordt, readings of his hypothetical universalism have been relatively diverse. Because of the dogmatic intrigue the question of the extent of Christ’s work often garners among theologians, it is not altogether surprising to find many theological judgments pronounced on Davenant’s theology—​either positively or negatively. While some of the studies of Davenant’s theology have ably explained certain aspects of his hypothetical universalism, few have attempted to look at the roots of his teaching on the extent of Christ’s death. It is this history to which c­ hapters 2 through 4 of this study give attention. A consistent complaint about Davenant’s hypothetical universalism is that it is either ambiguous or dogmatically incoherent; the remaining chapters will attempt to alleviate some of these claims. When

Prolegomena  13 Davenant’s hypothetical universalism is placed within his other relevant theological assumptions, many of these supposed ambiguities will be resolved.

1.3  Definition of Terms Given the axiom aequivocationibus ludere, non est Theologorum, sed Sophistarum, qui fallere volunt (To play with equivocations is not befitting of theologians, but of sophists, who desire to mislead others), this section attempts to make clear how various terms will be employed in this study.99

1.3.1  The Term “Hypothetical Universalism” It is important to recognize that “hypothetical universalism” is not a term one normally finds in early modern literature.100 The label likely originated sometime around the mid-​seventeenth century during the debates among the French Reformed Churches, and it appears to exclusively denote (at least originally) the controversial theological doctrines regarding universal grace promoted at the Academy of Saumur by Cameron and his students, most notably Amyraut and Louis Cappel.101 What made the French position “hypothetical universalism” was the belief that God had instituted a conditional decree, on account of the death of Christ, whereby God wills to save all, provided they believe on Jesus Christ. This “hypothetical universalism” is not to be conflated with the “universalism” of Arminianism.102 It is probable that the term was originally a term of derision as were many “-​isms” and “-​ists” of the period, including the term “Calvinist.”103 Given the provenance of the term, there is good reason to carefully distinguish the “Amyraldianism” or French hypothetical universalism found among the students of Cameron at Saumur from the “hypothetical universalism” of other Reformed theologians not directly connected to the French Reformed debate.104 Versions of the non-​Amyraldian hypothetical universalism can be found much earlier than Cameron, and one can even find hypothetical universalistic elements among some of the critics of the French version.105 Two examples of such complexity will suffice. First, as Muller has recently demonstrated, when Bishop Davenant, the preeminent English hypothetical universalist, was asked by the French Reformed Churches to give his judgment on Cameron’s version of

14  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism hypothetical universalism, he was, at best, suspicious of Cameron’s doctrine.106 The second, even more curious case involves Andre Rivet, one of the chief antagonists of Amyraut and his doctrine of universal grace. Rivet was quite possibly one of the initial theologians to coin the derisive term “les hypothétiques” (the hypothetical ones) against Amyraut and those like him.107 Nevertheless, Rivet, after having read two letters written by Bishops Joseph Hall and Davenant to the Reformed Bremen minister Herman Hildebrand (who argued in thirteen theses for a version of hypothetical universalism, and for whom Davenant and Hall gave their hearty approval), unequivocally wrote in 1641 that he could not disagree with Davenant and Hall’s judgment on the extent of Christ’s satisfaction.108 In short, the theological category of “hypothetical universalism” is a very flexible term in modern/​ contemporary scholarship, denoting a variety of different instantiations of Reformed theology, though the term had a much narrower function in the early modern period. Although the term “hypothetical universalism” was most likely unknown to theologians during Davenant’s time, there are two terms that were regularly used to identify a position much like the hypothetical universalism of the early English Reformed theologians: “universal redemption” and “the middle way.” The former term was descriptive of a theological position adopted by both Reformed and Remonstrant theologians. “Universal redemption” usually denoted that Christ died for all human beings in such a way that if all believed, all would be saved.109 Many Reformed authors, including both continental and English Reformed theologians, used the label “universal redemption” in their theological systems. For example, Wolfgang Musculus, Jacob Kimedoncius, and other sixteenth-​and seventeenth-​ century Reformed theologians argued for a form of “universal redemption,” which Musculus glossed as “[The death of Christ] is so appoynted unto al men, that without it no man is, nor can be redeemed.”110 By the middle of the seventeenth century the doctrine of “universal redemption” had become commonplace among Arminian, Reformed, Lutheran, and other theologians who claimed that Christ made a satisfaction for sin on behalf of all human beings such that if all believed, all would be saved.111 The other designation, “the middle way,” was often used as a synonym for universal redemption.112 When Reformed theologians used this term, it highlighted the distinctiveness of their (or some of their Reformed brethren’s) approach to the thorny question of the extent of Christ’s satisfaction from other approaches to the doctrine.113 In the latter part of the sixteenth century,

Prolegomena  15 with the rise of what the Reformed deemed as unorthodox Lutheran views (such as the teachings of Samuel Huber) and what might be called proto-​ Remonstrant opinions, certain Reformed theologians were interested in preserving what they (at least) perceived to be the status quo: the catholic and Reformed doctrine of universal redemption.114 The use of the term “middle way” coincided with the increasing number of Reformed theologians who denied that Christ was appointed as mediator for both elect and nonelect, often explicitly teaching that Christ died for the elect alone. Reformed advocates of universal redemption (such as Ussher, Davenant, and Baxter) juxtaposed their position with those who claimed that Christ died equally for all human beings (understood to be the Remonstrant position) and also those who confessed that Christ’s redemptive work was accomplished only on behalf of the elect (understood as the extreme Contra-​Remonstrant position).115 Hence, Davenant explicitly describes his approach as a middle way between those theologians who affirmed the proposition that “Christ died for the elect alone” and those who argued that “Christ offered himself to God the Father equally to redeem each and every human being.”116 In this sense, at least, the advocates of English hypothetical universalism cast their views as a via media. Nevertheless, this is not to be interpreted as a via media between Arminianism and Calvinism, nor as the nineteenth-​century Anglican via media of John Henry Newman; rather, it was a via media (as they saw it) of true Reformed Augustinianism over and against uncatholic deviations.117 This is one reason why these “middle way” Reformed theologians so often appealed not just to the earlier Reformed tradition but also to the scholastic and patristic tradition in support of their doctrine. They judged their via media as not only biblical but universal or catholic.118 For the sake of simplicity, this study will distinguish between hypothetical universalism broadly considered and narrowly considered. Broadly considered, we understand early modern hypothetical universalism to teach (1) that Christ died for all human beings in order to merit by his death the possibility of the redemption of all human beings on condition of their faith and repentance. All human beings, on account of the death of Christ, are redeemable or savable—​that is, able to have their sins remitted according to divine justice. Further, (2) early modern hypothetical universalism affirmed that God, by means of the death of Christ, purchased, merited, or impetrated all the to-​be-​applied saving graces for the elect, and for the elect alone. Christ died for the apostle Peter in a way he did not die for Judas.119

16  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism Narrowly considered, we may observe that there were varieties of hypothetical universalisms which were often determined by geographic or linguistic boundaries. While all hypothetical universalists held to hypothetical universalism broadly considered, the French “hypothetical universalists” often spoke in ways of which the English hypothetical universalists did not approve. Even the irenic English hypothetical universalist Baxter would remark, “[T]‌he point of universal redemption wherein I think Amyrald doth best, and in that . . . I approve of most he saith. But about the Decrees I differ from him; especially the Phrase of a conditional Decree, (which he hath forsaken now) I dislike.”120 Similarly, those such as Theophilus Gale who were not themselves advocates of hypothetical universalism would, to use Smeaton’s phrase, “draw a wide line of demarcation” between Davenant’s hypothetical universalism and the “new Method” coming out of the French Churches: It’s wel known, that some of great worth and truly orthodox in point of Grace, have yet somewhat inclined towards the new Method in point of universal objective Grace, as pious and learned Usher, Davenant, and others both in our and the French Churches, who hold, Christs death to be an universal remedie applicable to al, but yet are far from asserting an universal subjective Grace, or any velleitie in God of saving al men, which Amyraldus and others assert. As for those who hold absolute and particular Election and Reprobation, Original sin in its ful extent, mens natural impotence and being dead in sin, efficacious Grace in the conversion of sinners, with Gods absolute, efficacious, immediate, total and predeterminative concurse to al natural as wel as supernatural actions, as Davenant, and some others, who incline to an objective universal Grace, do, I have no controversie with them, but can owne them as friends of Grace, albeit in some modes of explicating it, they differ from us.121

Thus, the various designations of the Reformed version of universal redemption are fluid, both in the early modern period and in modern scholarship. Nevertheless, there is a central core to what scholars often call hypothetical universalism. In this study, the terms “middle way” and “hypothetical universalism” will be used synonymously. The term “universal redemption” will denote the “universal” aspect of the teaching of the hypothetical universalists while also, when referencing Reformed theologians, connote the second, “particular” aspect to the hypothetical universalist scheme.

Prolegomena  17

1.3.2  Other Terms In this study, the terms “limited atonement” and “particular atonement” will be used sparingly. A few comments on this language are in order because of the criticisms offered by Muller especially.122 First, as Muller has aptly noted, “atonement” is an English word that, at best, only approximates the language of “satisfaction” or “redemption” typically used among the early modern theologians. Further, as Muller also observes, there is the ever-​present danger of anachronism when later dogmatic formulations of “limited atonement” are brought into the early modern period. Still, the use of such language does not seem altogether unwarranted for the early modern period. The language of universal and particular “atonement” is used in the early modern period, even if sparingly. In 1647, the Scottish Presbyterian and Westminster divine Samuel Rutherford oscillated between speaking of “universal redemption” and “universal atonement” without seeming to denote anything different by the two terms.123 In adjoining lines, Rutherford could talk of a “universal atonement” and a “particular redemption.”124 While he preferred the language of particular atonement or particular redemption, the Reformed theologian William Troughton, writing against universal redemption, spoke of a “restrained or limited” redemption in the very title of his book.125 In short, while Muller’s warning is a helpful one, it is not wholly improper to mix the ideas of redemption and atonement according to early modern English standards. And although Muller claims that “the whole point of what has typically been identified as limited atonement was not the limitation of the value or sufficiency of Christ’s satisfaction but a limitation of the extent or efficacy of its application,” this does not seem to exhaust the early modern usage of definite or limited “atonement” or “redemption.”126 Troughton does not merely limit the efficacy of the application of the atoning work of Christ to the elect alone, but expressly limits its sufficiency: That we should extend the sufficiency and merit of Christ’s death and bloodshed, beyond the purpose, decree, and intention of the Father and the Son, for my part I cannot see any clear ground. . . . But I conceive that it cannot properly be said to be a sufficient ransom for every man. . . . So then, the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death, are to be joyntly limitted to them for whom he dyed and payed the price of redemption.127

18  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism While this point will be developed and defended in much more detail throughout our study, the debate between the hypothetical universalists and their Reformed brethren who denied hypothetical universalism was chiefly over whether Christ died for all sufficiently or the elect alone.128 Put differently, the debate within the Reformed community—​at least as the hypothetical universalists saw it—​was whether the divine intention of Christ’s death was limited to the elect or also had a universal aspect. A couple of other terms are worth defining at the outset. When one speaks about the extent of Christ’s death, “Christ’s death” should be understood as shorthand and metonymical for the whole work of Christ, including (in Davenant’s theology) both Christ’s active and passive obedience. Here we follow Davenant’s own comments in De Morte Christi.129 Hence, this study will often move between the extent of Christ’s work and the extent of Christ’s death with no alternative meaning implied. Finally, the term “Contra-​ Remonstrants” will be used to designate those Reformed theologians who, after the initial controversies with the Remonstrants, pitched their position over and against the Remonstrants often in distinction to Davenant’s version of Reformed theology. The Contra-​Remonstrants denoted the Dutch Reformed community, which was politically and theologically antagonistic toward the Remonstrants. As a theological term used among the British, however, it sometimes connoted a radicalizing of controversial issues related to soteriology among the Reformed orthodox on account of the Remonstrant controversy.130 In this study, the term “Contra-​Remonstrants” is often used as a shorthand for the alternative Reformed position with which Davenant often contrasts his own theology. Narrowly speaking, this would include the Contra-​Remonstrants at the Hague Conference of 1611; more broadly, it would include other Reformed theologians taking similar positions to the former, including, for example, the Englishman William Ames.

1.4  Thesis This study will examine Davenant’s hypothetical universalism in the context of early modern Reformed orthodoxy. In light of the various misunderstandings of early modern hypothetical universalism (including English hypothetical universalism), as well as the paucity of studies touching on Davenant’s theology in particular, this study will (1) give a detailed exposition of Davenant’s doctrine of universal redemption in dialogue with his

Prolegomena  19 understanding of closely related doctrines, such as God’s will, predestination, providence, and covenant theology, and (2) defend the thesis that Davenant’s version of hypothetical universalism represents a significant strand of the Augustinian tradition, including the early modern Reformed tradition, over and against the popular—​albeit inaccurate—​thesis that his hypothetical universalism was a via media between Reformed orthodoxy and Arminianism.

1.5  Outline of Argument The relationship of Davenant’s doctrine of universal redemption with Reformed orthodoxy is a controversial subject and has been since Davenant’s own time. Davenant believed that his doctrine of universal redemption represented the older Reformed tradition, including the Church of England, exemplified in Reformed theologians as eminent as Melanchthon, Calvin, Musculus, Bullinger, Ursinus, and Pareus, to name but a few. Davenant further maintained that his view was in accord with the best of the medieval tradition, appealing to Peter Lombard and his famous “Lombardian formula” as well as to Lombard’s preeminent commentator, Thomas Aquinas. Davenant, in his persistent attempt to claim catholicity with respect to all he taught, alleged that his position was also shared by the classic anti-​ Pelagians: Augustine, Prosper, and Fulgentius. In fact, Davenant argued that those who ended up moving away from classic orthodoxy were those theologians who denied what he called an “ordained sufficiency” in the work of Christ. Davenant wrote to the French Reformed Churches in response to an inquiry into the theology of Cameron’s “universal grace”: I believe that no theologian of sound judgment in the Reformed Church wishes to deny a general intention or ordination by the death of Christ concerning the salvation of each and every human being under this condition: if they should believe. For this intention or ordination of God is general, and is plainly revealed in the Holy Scriptures, although the absolute and infrustratable intention of God concerning the granting of faith and eternal life to some persons is special and is restricted to the elect alone.131

Chapter 2, then, begins the first of three historical chapters, placing Davenant’s hypothetical universalism in its broader historical context. This chapter covers the Augustinian controversy, continuing through the

20  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism medieval debate over the writings of Gottschalk of Orbais, which marked the last significant point until the early modern period when the extent of Christ’s death was significantly debated, and finishes with the codification of the famous Lombardian formula among the medieval scholastics. While the scholastics did discuss the question “For whom did Christ die?,” the patristic and early medieval period were the most important periods of discussion and debate until the early modern period. Chapter 2 intentionally follows Davenant’s own history of the controversy found in the first chapter of his De Morte Christi for at least four reasons. First, by focusing on Davenant’s own historical work, one gets a glimpse into how English hypothetical universalists interpreted the various patristic and medieval theologians. As becomes clear in this study, Davenant’s history serves a polemical end: the catholicity of his theology. Second, a focus on Davenant’s history of the controversy illuminates the basic categories and emphases that his own position, which is self-​consciously Augustinian, draws upon; this then illustrates the patristic roots of his position. Third, as Davenant’s history is quite extensive, there is no great need, at least relative to the aim of our study, for an independent survey. Finally, an explanation of Davenant’s own interpretation of this history sets the stage for the first early modern controversies relating to the death of Christ. Picking up where ­chapter 2 ends, ­chapter 3 concentrates on the role the Lombardian formula played in the first early modern debates on the extent of Christ’s atonement. These debates furnish the immediate background to the Remonstrant controversy culminating with the Synod of Dordt. Examining Theodore Beza’s criticism of the Lombardian formula against his Lutheran antagonists, and ending on the eve of the Synod of Dordt, this chapter gives essential background material to Davenant’s interpretation of the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death. This chapter as well lays out a basic early modern Reformed taxonomy on the extent of the atonement. It is at this point in our narrative where the initial signs of discontent with the Lombardian formula bequeathed to the early modern theological world become evident. Thus, it was in this polemical context where Reformed theologians and their theological adversaries began to inquire more diligently into the meaning of the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death and what it means for Christ to die “for” all, making way for a new set of theological questions to be debated, such as the nature of Christ’s satisfaction as well as the relationship between God’s decree and Christ’s atoning work.

Prolegomena  21 Chapter 4 concludes the historical survey portion of this study with a focus on the rise of what has been called English hypothetical universalism, culminating in Davenant’s role at the Synod of Dordt and his subsequent treatise on the death of Christ, De Morte Christi. Although other important theological documents published in England played a noteworthy role regarding the extent of Christ’s work, Ussher’s two letters summarizing and defending his hypothetical universalism were especially significant. Ussher’s letters represent one of the first arguments for a distinctly hypothetical universalist position over and against the other emerging distinct positions of the Remonstrants and Contra-​Remonstrants. Moreover, a close look at the role of the British delegation at the Synod of Dordt, including an examination of the various Dordtian manuscripts previously unexamined, will suggest that Davenant’s treatise grew directly out of his time at Dordt. Chapter 4 thus provides a segue into the next three chapters, which offer a close theological exposition of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism. Chapter 5 gives a detailed exposition of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism as expounded in his De Morte Christi. Given our proposal that Davenant’s hypothetical universalism represents a significant trajectory of Augustinian and Reformed orthodoxy, this chapter will be essential in demonstrating Davenant’s continuity and discontinuity with earlier theological approaches to the death of Christ. Davenant’s theological sparring partners are not the whole of the Reformed or Augustinian tradition but rather certain contemporary positions among the Reformed orthodox that he deemed had strayed from the more classic or catholic expressions of the extent of Christ’s work exemplified in his interpretation of the Lombardian formula. In other words, Davenant never saw his project as a softening of the Reformed tradition; rather it was a defense or recovery of an earlier form of the Reformed tradition as it stood in continuity with the belief that Christ died for all, sufficiently. Chapters 6 and 7 focus on two aspects of Davenant’s theology closely related to his exposition of hypothetical universalism: his covenant theology and his doctrine of the divine will. Chapter 6 looks at Davenant’s federal theology, especially as it provides the framework for God’s saving mercy toward mankind. In contrast to scholarship that has been suspicious of Davenant’s covenant theology in view of the burgeoning Reformed covenant theologies of his day, this chapter shows that his covenant theology is not unique, nor does it lead to certain conclusions, such as limited atonement, as some scholarship has intimated. Davenant’s doctrine of the divine will and how it

22  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism undergirds his view of the extent of Christ’s death is the focus of c­ hapter 7. Davenant’s whole theory of hypothetical universalism is founded upon two divine ordinations regarding Christ’s death. The two ordinations have often and quite recently been interpreted as contradictory or, at least, confusing. One reason for these misinterpretations is a failure to understand Davenant’s distinctions regarding the divine will as they are applied to the work of Christ. When one realizes that in Davenant’s account the divine will for the salvation of all is not of the same kind as the divine will to save the elect, nor does God absolutely will that the death of Christ be applied to all human beings, many of the complaints about Davenant’s theology are shown to miss their mark. This chapter, then, attempts to explain how Davenant understands and avoids theological contradiction in positing two ends for Christ’s death, a universal and a particular. Finally, in c­ hapter 8, we will summarize the conclusions of this work, reiterating the thesis that Davenant’s hypothetical universalism is both Reformed and catholic.

2 The Extent of Christ’s Work from the Early Church to Gottschalk 2.1  Introduction Scholars have often observed that earlier Christian theological tradition, especially in the patristic period, played a significant role in the theological development of Reformed theology in the early modern period.1 It was not uncommon for early modern Protestants and Roman Catholics to contend over their interpretation of revered ecclesiastical authorities from the past in order to determine dogmatic differences.2 The desire for doctrinal catholicity is especially evident in early modern English Protestantism. The Church of England’s 1571 Canons of Church Discipline expressly stated that preachers “shall take heede, that they teach nothing in their preaching . . . but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the olde Testament, or the newe, and that which the catholicke fathers, and auncient Bishops have gathered out of that doctrine.”3 In 1609, after quoting from the Canons of 1571, Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London John Overall remarked: [W]‌e holde, professe, and mainteine so intire and full consent with the ancient and Catholike Fathers, in all things necessary to the being, or well-​ being of the Church, to the Rule of Faith, and substance of Religion, to the right service of God, and salvation of man, as whatsoever heerein they teach and deliver with consent, assertive, by way of averring of doctrine, and avouching of truth, tanquam ex fide, as a matter of faith, grounded in their iudgement upon Gods word, we willingly receive, embrace, and observe.4

The doctrinal judgments of the early church were often seen to be especially authoritative because of their chronological nearness to Jesus Christ. Davenant, citing Thomas Aquinas, claimed, “[I]‌t is credible (what Aquinas observed) that the Apostles and others which were nearer to Christ, had a fuller Knowledge of the mysteries of the Faith, than we that are further John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism. Michael J. Lynch, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197555149.003.0002

24  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism off.”5 Although it would be an overstatement to suggest that the Reformed attempted to determine controversies solely by means of earlier councils and theologians, ecclesiastical tradition was without doubt a significant polemical tool in the Protestant toolbox. Richard Muller rightly says that “[t]he Reformers and the Protestant orthodox held the tradition in relatively high esteem and continued to cite the councils of the first five centuries and church Fathers generally as authorities in doctrinal matters,” even as they were deemed “lesser authorities” than Scripture’s supreme authority.6 In his polemical work on the efficacy of Christ’s death published in 1603, the Roman Catholic Johann Windeck seized hold of the authoritative role the early church played in disputes with the Reformed, claiming that John Calvin “freely grants that nothing changed in the doctrine of the church from its beginning up until Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, indeed even the time of Augustine.”7 Accordingly, Windeck saw the first five hundred years of the church as a significant battleground for Christian orthodoxy.8 As the debates over the extent of Christ’s work arose in the latter half of the sixteenth century, so too did surveys of the early and medieval church regarding the doctrine. Windeck, for example, produced over twenty-​five pages of testimonia in defense of his view of the efficacy of Christ’s death over and against the Reformed, especially Jacobus Kimedoncius and Theodore Beza.9 One can identify two main stages in the development of these debates over the extent of Christ’s work in early modern theology.10 The first stage corresponds to the first inklings of disagreement among the Lutherans, Reformed, and Roman Catholics regarding the interpretation of the old “Lombardian” distinction between the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death near the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century. It is crucial to realize that the Reformed orthodox understood the distinction to be much more ancient than Peter Lombard’s phrasing in the twelfth century. The German-​speaking Reformed theologian David Pareus expressly defended the Lombardian formula from its detractors, claiming that “if a Papist or Lutheran thinks otherwise, they consent in error against Scripture and all antiquity.”11 Pareus cited Ambrose (among others) as proof of the formula.12 Moreover, the German Reformed theologian Heinrich Alting, whose modification of the Lombardian formula represents some of the early dissatisfaction with the formula among the Reformed, openly confessed it to be “an old distinction” going back to the time of Augustine.13 In short, because of the antiquity of the sufficiency/​efficacy distinction, debates among Catholics and Protestants were forced to attend to the writings of the patristic period.

The Extent of Christ’s Work from the Early Church  25 The second stage of controversy regarding the death of Christ corresponded with the rise of the distinctive approaches of hypothetical universalism and Arminianism. This period brought on a renewed interest among the Reformed in patristic sources touching on the question. James Ussher, John Davenant, Herman Hildebrand, John Owen, and Jean Daillé all garnered patristic and/​or medieval support for their position on the extent of Christ’s work.14 The German Reformed minister Hildebrand’s Auctoritates et Testimonia is most impressive, as he produced thirty-​six pages of ancient and medieval testimony for his version of hypothetical universalism;15 after this followed 187 pages of testimonia from Reformed authorities!16 Remonstrants, most notably John Goodwin and Gerhard Johann Vossius, also yielded extensive testimonia.17 Once these two stages of early modern Reformed theology passed, relatively little was written on the patristic and medieval period regarding the extent of Christ’s death. One prominent exception, however, comes from the eighteenth-​century Baptist John Gill; his testimonia included a rejoinder to Daillé’s testimonia.18 In the nineteenth century, various historians and ministers surveyed the period usually to defend their position against modern dissenters.19 Still, the patristic and medieval period has been given relatively little attention among contemporary historical theologians. Nevertheless, some recent studies are worth mentioning.20 First, in his dissertation on the debate at the Synod of Dordt over the extent of the atonement, Robert Godfrey gives a brief sketch of the patristic and medieval views on the question.21 Godfrey claims that while Augustine did not clearly express the doctrine of limited atonement, he “did come very close to this doctrine.”22 According to Godfrey, it is in Prosper of Aquitaine’s discussion of the topic wherein we find the “most definitive” judgment of the early church for the particularity of the death of Christ.23 Godfrey concludes his brief survey noting the importance that Lombard’s sufficiency/​efficacy distinction had for subsequent theological reflection.24 In 1990, Jonathan Rainbow provided a detailed survey of the extent of the atonement in the patristic, medieval, and Reformation periods.25 According to Rainbow, Augustine held to the doctrine of limited redemption, though Rainbow admitted that Prosper “moved gradually away from a strict Augustinianism.”26 Rainbow argued that there was a general loss of the Augustinian position in the late patristic and early medieval periods only to be recovered in the ninth century by Gottschalk of Orbais.

26  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism Explicitly following Godfrey’s work is an essay by Raymond Blacketer on definite atonement in its historical perspective.27 This essay, like many of the studies in the modern period, suffers from lack of a clear definition of definite atonement. It is not altogether clear if Blacketer’s understanding of definite atonement would include or exclude the various forms of early modern hypothetical universalism. Notwithstanding this ambiguity, Blacketer argues that although it was a “minority position” during the patristic and medieval periods, the Augustinian position bequeathed to the Reformers was a form of particularism.28 According to Blacketer, “one of the differences between Augustine and his opponents, the Pelagians, was that the latter affirmed that Christ died for every individual sinner.”29 As we will see, Davenant maintained a different reading of Augustine. More recently, two essays in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her survey the patristic and medieval period for signs of definite atonement. Michael Haykin looks at definite atonement in the patristic era.30 David S. Hogg examines the medieval period, focusing largely on Gottschalk, Lombard, and Aquinas.31 In the first study, Haykin follows Gill’s testimonia as a starting point for examining the period. Haykin surveys seven theologians: Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, and Prosper. Not surprisingly, Haykin finds in each the seeds of definite atonement doctrine, even if not “full-​orbed.”32 He hedges his conclusions with the claim that “this is not a controversial issue in the ancient church,” and therefore “what can be gleaned about the doctrine is mostly from implied comments rather than direct assertion.”33 As in Blacketer’s essay, the reader is not given a clear definition of what does and does not pass for definite atonement. Hogg, in contrast to Blacketer’s work, argues “that definite atonement was not a minority view in the medieval church.”34 Nevertheless, Hogg does a better job proving that the medieval theologians he examined held to an Augustinian doctrine of predestination rather than “limited or definite atonement,” which is ambiguously defined as “the idea that Christ’s blood was shed for those chosen and predestined by God from before the foundation of the world.”35 Most recently, David Allen’s work on the extent of the atonement concludes that most of the patristic and medieval theologians denied limited atonement, that is, that Christ died only for the elect.36 Allen’s survey, though hampered by a lack of Latin sources, is more sensitive to the ways in which the various ecclesiastical figures used universal and particular language. He is also sensitive to the disparate readings of various figures and

The Extent of Christ’s Work from the Early Church  27 often persuasively argues for his own interpretation. Notably, Allen, unlike the former studies, often makes use of Davenant’s historical survey. Except for Allen’s recent work, none of these contemporary studies considers whether the roots of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism might be found in these various patristic and early medieval authors, especially the Augustinians. Moreover, plaguing this literature is the lack of a sophisticated hermeneutic—​a hermeneutic evident in early modern readings of these patristic authors—​that is able to navigate and systematize both the universalistic and the particularistic language found among the patristic and medieval theologians. In fact, it is this same inability to probe this antinomy that may lie behind the frustration of modern interpreters of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism who tend to find Davenant’s dual emphasis either contradictory to or in tension with other language of his. This chapter will seek to vindicate Davenant’s reading of this period of ecclesiastical history, buttressing our thesis that Davenant’s theology stands in strong continuity with the Augustinianism bequeathed to him. This chapter, then, examines the various patristic and early medieval debates regarding the extent of Christ’s work insofar as those polemics provided Davenant with a theological background for his own exposition of the extent of Christ’s passion as well as exposing the Augustinian roots of his theology. The first chapter of Davenant’s De Morte Christi was dedicated to explaining the origin and history of the controversy over the extent of Christ’s atoning work. The central players in this controversy were the anti-​Pelagians: Augustine, Prosper, and Fulgentius. The writings of these theologians continued to have significant influence throughout the medieval period, including at the various church councils and synods and on the controversial theologian Gottschalk of Orbais. Given our thesis that Davenant’s doctrine of the extent of Christ’s death is in continuity with Augustinianism, his interpretation of this tradition is juxtaposed with other contemporary interpretations from the early modern period as well as the aforementioned modern interpretations. Even though these patristic and early medieval discussions about the extent of Christ’s atonement did not always address all the concerns that developed in the early modern context, certain trajectories relating to the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death begin to emerge. These trajectories will be shown to be, especially when read against the background of the later chapters of this study, in strong continuity with Davenant’s hypothetical universalism.

28  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism While such an argument might at first strain credulity, none other than John Owen—​no advocate of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism—​in his brief remarks about Davenant’s De Morte Christi conceded that his hypothetical universalism sounded like Augustinianism: The whole of that Perswasion [found in Davenant’s De Morte Christi], I confess, which he endeavoureth in them to maintain, is suited to the Expressions of sundry Learned men, as Austin [i.e., Augustine], Hillary, Fulgentius, Prosper, who in their Generations deserved exceeding well of the Church of God: But that it is free from Opposition to the Scripture, or indeed self-​Contradiction, is not so apparant.37

Given that only a year or so earlier Owen had implied that the Augustinians taught his own view on the extent of Christ’s atoning work,38 could it be that he changed his mind regarding his interpretation of the Augustinians through reading Davenant’s historical survey of the period? Regardless, Davenant, like his fellow early modern English theologians, took seriously his duty to teach the catholic, universal faith bequeathed to him, and he was convinced that his own doctrine was consonant with the best of ecclesiastical history: “We make no doubt, but this Doctrine of the Extent of Christ’s Redemption is the undoubted Doctrine of the holy Scriptures, and most consonant to Antiquity, Fathers and Councils, to whom our Church will have all Preachers to have special respect in doctrinal points, lib. quorund. Canon. Discip. Eccles. Anglic. Edit. 1571. cap. de Concionatoribus.”39

2.2  Patristic Period Knowledge of historical theology was crucial for Davenant in the determination of a debated theological topic.40 He began his De Morte Christi recounting the origin of the controversy regarding the extent of Christ’s death from the patristic period through the Reformation period. Davenant explains why he provides a historical survey: “For just as it is especially important to be well-​acquainted with the origin and causes of diseases in order to cure them; likewise, in order to settle controversies, it is essential to thoroughly understand on what occasion they arose, by whom they were fought, in what way, and to what end those controversies were debated by the Fathers.”41 Davenant was convinced that before the Pelagian controversy,

The Extent of Christ’s Work from the Early Church  29 the church Fathers were all agreed that the death of Christ was “undertaken and endured for the redemption of the human race,” though it was “actually beneficial only to those who believe.”42 In his history of the controversy, Davenant buttressed his reading of this early patristic period by quoting from Clement of Alexandria and Origen.43 Yet throughout De Morte Christi, Davenant made some important hermeneutical points worth mentioning. First, he noted that the patristics regularly speak of Christ’s redeeming or making satisfaction for the sins of all human beings. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea said that “it was necessary that the Lamb of God . . . should be offered as a sacrifice for the other lambs whose nature he assumed [cognatis], even for the whole human race.”44 Moreover, this language of Christ dying for the whole human race or all should and could not be interpreted as signifying the elect alone. As Davenant says, “The proposition, Christ died for these people, did not have the same meaning [non perinde valere] with [the patristics] as this, Christ by his death will infallibly save these people.”45 In fact, Davenant assumed that this point “[was] well known to those who [were] moderately versed in the writings of the Fathers.”46 He cited Ambrose of Milan on Ps. 119:64 (Vulgate: Ps. 118:64), who wrote that “Christ suffered for all,” yet “those who do not believe in Christ, deprive themselves of this general benefit.”47 Clearly Ambrose cannot be interpreted as saying that Christ suffered only for the elect under the category of “all.”

2.2.1  Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and Semi-​Pelagianism In focusing the bulk of his survey on the fifth century, Davenant set out to show that the Augustinians did not teach that the death of Christ is limited to the predestined alone, even though that was the charge brought upon them by their adversaries.48 He noted that the very first indictment of the Augustinians by the Vincentians (possibly named after Vincent of Lérins) was that the former taught “[t]‌hat our Lord Jesus Christ did not suffer for the salvation and redemption of all human beings.”49 Because the anti-​ Augustinians often claimed that Augustine and his followers denied that Christ died for all, later interpreters of Augustine would presume that this was, in fact, true: “Their adversaries were accustomed to accuse Augustine and others who agreed with his doctrine of predestination that they taught that Christ was crucified for the predestined alone; and on account of this

30  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism accusation of the Pelagians, some in succeeding ages seemed to take this as an opportunity to stir-​up the aforementioned controversy.”50 The question of what Augustine believed concerning the extent of Christ’s death was a disputed question in the seventeenth century.51 A contemporary of Davenant’s, the Roman Catholic Cornelius Jansen (1585–​1638), whose famous Augustinus still stands as one of the best studies of Augustinian theology, expressly claimed that there was no place in Augustine’s writings where Christ was said to die for all human beings, none excepted, or that Christ gave himself as a ransom for all, or was crucified or died for all.52 Jansen, who apparently read through Augustine’s works ten times,53 wrote, “Nor in the whole works of Augustine, unless I am mistaken, is there a place where he teaches that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the unfaithful in lasting unfaithfulness, or gave himself as a redemption for them.”54 The puritan Richard Baxter represented an alternative reading of Augustine in the early modern period. Baxter conceded that Augustine “oft den[ied] that Christ redeemeth any but the faithful” or “denieth common redemption.” Yet Baxter alleged that when Augustine used the term “redemption” it was “often for the very liberation of the captive sinner.”55 This was a key hermeneutical tool for approaching the particularist language of the early and medieval church Fathers. Hence, according to Baxter’s interpretation of Augustine, when Augustine seemed to deny universal redemption, he denied only the “actual deliverance” of all human beings by the death of Christ.56 Baxter insisted that “he [i.e., Augustine] asserteth . . . that Christ died for all. Yea, he thought his death is actually applied to the true justification and sanctification of some Reprobates that fall away and perish.”57 These competing claims about Augustine’s own view are clearly in the background of Davenant’s historical survey. The British delegation at Dordt actually pushed back against those Reformed at Dordt who presumed that Augustine taught that Christ died only for the elect.58 Many works have ably traced the Pelagian and semi-​Pelagian controversies, but a brief historical background of the debate will be useful for explaining Davenant’s interpretation of the Pelagian controversy as it relates to the atoning work of Christ.59 In the year 405, the British Pelagius, who had been residing in Rome, publicly rejected Augustine’s “Da quod iubes, et iube quod vis” (Give what you command, and command what you wish).60 In 411/​412, Caelestius, a follower of Pelagius living in Carthage at the time, was excommunicated for teaching a whole host of unorthodox positions, such as that

The Extent of Christ’s Work from the Early Church  31 Adam was created mortal and would have died even if he had not sinned; that his sin injured only himself and not the human race; that infants at the time of their birth are in the same state that Adam was in before the Fall; that mankind as a whole did not die through Adam’s death or transgression, nor would it [sic] rise again through Christ’s resurrection; that the Law had the same effect as the Gospel in bringing men into the Kingdom of Heaven; and that even before the coming of Christ there had been sinless men.61

At the center of the controversy with Pelagius and Caelestius was the doctrine of original sin and the necessity of divine grace.62 In 418, Pelagius’s own teachings were condemned by the Council of Carthage in eight Canons.63 Shortly after the Council, Pope Zosimus condemned and excommunicated both Pelagius and his colleague Caelestius.64 Although certain followers of Pelagius objected to the excommunication, by 431 Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Ephesus: “If the metropolitan of a province . . . has embraced the doctrines of Caelestius or does so in the future . . . he is henceforth barred by the council from all ecclesiastical communion and is rendered completely ineffective.”65 Around the same time Pelagianism was being condemned, there arose further controversy surrounding Augustine’s predestinarian teaching. In Provence (southern Gaul), certain monastic groups—​especially from Marseille and Lérins—​ simultaneously rejected both Pelagianism and Augustine’s predestinarianism. As Alexander Hwang puts it, the objection to Augustine’s doctrine of predestination was that it was “novel, fatalistic, and removed free will,” undermining the Christian pursuit of holiness.66 Notably for our purposes, the “semi-​Pelagians” (as they would later be called)67 accused the Augustinians of teaching that “our Lord Jesus Christ did not suffer for the salvation and redemption of all human beings,” that Christ was not “crucified for the redemption of the entire world,” and that “God does not wish to save all people.”68 These doctrinal charges levied by the Gallicans were rebutted by a fellow Gallican layman who was a strict follower of Augustine, Prosper of Aquitaine. Shortly following Augustine’s death in 430, Prosper briefly responded to each of these accusations. Against the proposition attributed to Augustine that Christ was not crucified for the entire world, Prosper made some key distinctions from which Davenant would draw extensively in his own doctrinal exposition. First, Prosper said that Christ took upon himself the mortal human nature of every single human being.69 Yet this fact alone does not secure any person’s

32  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism redemption. “It is not enough,” says Prosper, “that Christ our Lord was crucified for the redemption of human beings, unless they die with him and are buried with him in baptism.”70 For Prosper, redemption accomplished must be applied by way of union with Christ through repentance and the sacrament of baptism. The death of Christ on behalf of someone ipso facto saves no one. Prosper then makes another important distinction: “Accordingly, though it is most rightly said that the Savior was crucified for the redemption of the entire world, because he truly took our human nature . . . yet it may also be said that he was crucified only for those who have profited by his death.”71 In other words, there is a sense in which Christ might be said to have died for all and a sense in which he died only for those who have the benefits of his death applied to them.72 Both of these distinctions—​the distinction between redemption accomplished and applied and the distinction between Christ dying for all and for the elect alone—​are apparent in Prosper’s response to the Vincentians. Prosper’s rejoinder to the supposed teaching of Augustine that “our Lord Jesus Christ did not suffer for the salvation and redemption of all men” is worth quoting at length: Considering, then, the greatness and value [potentiam] of the price paid for us, and considering the common lot [unam pertinent causam] of the human race, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world. But they who pass through this life [saeculum] without faith in Christ and without having been reborn by the sacrament, remain untouched by this redemption. . . . The beverage of immortality prepared for our sickness and by God’s power is apt to restore health to all, but it cannot cure anyone unless it is drunk.73

Jansen, along with other early modern theologians, rightly noticed how similar Prosper’s language was to the medieval scholastic Lombardian formula glossed as “Christ sufficiently redeemed all, though not efficiently.”74 Prosper similarly distinguished between the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death in his recapitulated response to the objection of the Gallicans noted above. Prosper wrote, “The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is the price for the redemption of the whole world. But those who either cherishing their captivity refused to be freed or having been freed returned to their captivity, do not participate in this price.”75

The Extent of Christ’s Work from the Early Church  33 Davenant was convinced that “although the seeds of this controversy were sown, yet Augustine and his disciples never wished to be the patrons of the doctrine: Christ suffered for the predestined alone.”76 Davenant appealed not only to Prosper’s explicit response to the aforementioned accusation but also to other theological doctrines held by both Augustine and Prosper. Just as Baxter appealed to Augustine’s denial of the perseverance of the saints—​a rather controversial interpretation of Augustine’s theology in the early modern period77—​in order to highlight Augustine’s doctrine of universal redemption, Davenant pointed to Augustine’s baptismal theology to undermine those who interpreted him to teach that Christ died for the elect alone. Specifically, Davenant quoted from Prosper’s response to the Gallicans where, according to Davenant, he “extends the most proper benefit of his passion, namely, the remission of original sin, even to infants not predestined.”78 In his response to the second article, Prosper taught that “the one who says that in those who are not predestined to life the grace of baptism does not wipe away original sin is not a Catholic.”79 Augustine himself wrote that “sound faith and sound doctrine has held that no one who has come to Christ through baptism has ever been excluded from the grace of the forgiveness of sins.”80 If the grace of Christ’s death is actually applied to some of the nonelect via the remission of original sin, then, clearly, Christ did not die for the elect alone. There is some question as to whether Augustine and Prosper were completely of one mind regarding the efficacy of baptism for the reprobate.81 Nevertheless, Davenant explicitly followed both Augustine and Prosper, teaching that all infants who are lawfully baptized—​ whether elect or nonelect—​have original sin remitted.82 Notably, some years after Davenant’s death, Herman Witsius’s objection to Davenant’s position included the concession that Davenant’s baptismal position is substantially the same as Augustine’s own view, but Witsius also rejected Davenant’s baptismal efficacy view on account of the fact that it presumes that Christ died for and even has his death applied to the nonelect.83 Witsius rhetorically asks: [C]‌an they prove from Scripture that the blood of Christ is applied to any person for the remission of original sin, even for the effecting of a certain justification, regeneration, and adoption—​such an application as may suffice for salvation in a certain condition of life—​while that person has not been given to Christ by the eternal destination of the Father, so that Christ

34  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism in the discharge of the mediatorial office might sustain that person, make satisfaction, and merit salvation for that person?84

Both Witsius and Davenant recognized in Prosper’s and Augustine’s views of infant baptism an implicit widening of the extent—​and even application—​of Christ’s death beyond the elect. In his recounting of the debate between Pelagius and Augustine, Davenant specifically criticized two interpretive errors regarding the teachings of Pelagianism and the extent of Christ’s death. The first error, expressed by those Reformed theologians who argued that Christ died for the elect alone, claimed that it is Pelagian to teach that Christ died for all. Without explicitly naming those whom he has in mind, Davenant notes that “a certain learned man” (vir quidam doctus), while appealing to a locus communis from Augustine,85 asserted that the teaching of a “universal redemption and limited deliverance” (de universali redemptione et restricta liberatione) was a mark of Pelagianism and semi-​Pelagianism.86 It is difficult to determine with certainty whom Davenant may have had in mind. A likely candidate for the “certain learned man” is Johannes Bogerman, who was the president at the Synod of Dordt where Davenant was a delegate. That Davenant would not explicitly name Bogerman as his interlocutor is hardly surprising given their history at Dordt as well as other political and theological factors. In a response to Hugo Grotius’s defense of the Remonstrants, Bogerman appealed to William Perkins’s exposition of Augustine on the death of Christ.87 In his defense of what he deemed to be Augustinian orthodoxy, Bogerman used language strikingly similar to the wording Davenant used in describing the view of the “certain learned man.” Not only did Bogerman (following Perkins) discuss the very same passage of Augustine mentioned by Davenant, but he also used nearly the same phrase as Davenant. Bogerman wrote, “From these the reader sees that Augustine and Prosper attributed this opinion about universal redemption and limited deliverance [de universali redemptione, et restricta liberatione] to the Pelagians and semi-​Pelagians.”88 The disputed passage under consideration by Bogerman (following Perkins) comes from Augustine’s work Contra Julian. The passage reads: Go on, then, go on and say that in the sacrament of the Savior they are baptized, but not saved; they are redeemed, but not freed; they are bathed, but not washed; they are exorcised and exsufflated, but not snatched from the

The Extent of Christ’s Work from the Early Church  35 power of the devil. Likewise, declare that his blood is also shed for them for remission of sins, but they are cleansed by the forgiveness of no sin.89

Although Bogerman saw this quotation as support for his contention that “Christ died for all” was a Pelagian doctrine, Davenant strongly disputed such a reading. First, Davenant noted that contextually this passage refers only to infants.90 Second, Augustine did not write this “in order to show that Pelagianism taught that Christ died for those who on account of their own unbelief are not saved,” but rather to show that Pelagius taught that Christ “died for those, or redeemed those who were not subject to sin.”91 In other words, according to Davenant’s reading of Augustine, Augustine did not claim that Pelagianism actually taught that some were redeemed but not forgiven. Instead, Augustine thought that redemption was unnecessary in view of Pelagianism’s denial of original sin in those who were baptized. As Davenant summarized, “Pelagius acknowledged in words that they were redeemed, but taught in reality that they had no need of redemption.”92 Davenant supported his reading, citing a letter addressed to Pope Innocent I written by the various orthodox theologians who attended the Council of Carthage, where the Pelagians are said to have taught that infants are in no need of baptism because they do not inherit original guilt.93 Davenant was, hence, convinced that Pelagianism or semi-​Pelagianism was condemned neither by any council nor by Augustine himself for teaching that Christ died for all.94 Davenant also responded to what he judged to be a second interpretive error in the history of the Augustinian and semi-​Pelagian debate, this time from Remonstrants. The Remonstrant Nicolaas Grevinchovius asserted, against the interpretation of his Reformed opponents, including his immediate interlocutor William Ames, that Pelagius himself taught that Christ did not die for all human beings.95 Grevinchovius appealed to a passage from the well-​known semi-​Pelagian Faustus of Riez, who argued that the catholic church denied the teaching that Christ died for only some human beings.96 Strangely, as Davenant makes clear, Grevinchovius appeared to think that Faustus understood Pelagius to teach that Christ did not die for all.97 Yet as Davenant rightly recognized, Faustus had in mind not Pelagius but his opponents, such as Prosper and Augustine.98 Davenant seized the opportunity to reinforce the point he made earlier about the false charges the Vincentians levied, namely, that while the opponents of Augustinianism such as Faustus argued that Augustine and his followers taught that Christ

36  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism did not die for all human beings, this was, in fact, a false charge. Davenant writes, “[Faustus of Riez] calumniously imputed this opinion to Augustine and the orthodox, as necessarily connected with the doctrine of predestination; which nevertheless they never wanted to claim.”99 Fearing that contemporary early modern theological debates had impacted the interpretation of the Augustinian debates, Davenant insisted that the debate between the Pelagians and the orthodox on the death of Christ was not the same as what was being debated in the early modern period because Augustine never argued against the proposition that Christ died for all, nor did he insist that Christ died only for the predestined.100 Although Pelagianism was not to be objected to on the grounds that it taught that Christ died for all, Davenant did object to three key aspects of Pelagius and his followers’ teaching on the death of Christ. First, Davenant objected to Pelagius’s teaching that the death of Christ is applied to those (i.e., infants) who have no sin, which was contradictory, according to Davenant.101 Second, Davenant took exception to the “absurd, false, and very obscure condition” (absurdam falsam et valde obscuram conditionem) attached to the death of Christ by the semi-​Pelagians.102 Prosper summarized the semi-​Pelagian view as teaching, “Our Lord Jesus Christ has died for the whole of mankind, and not one person is excluded from the Christ’s redemption by his blood, even if each person lives his or her whole life in complete estrangement from him.”103 Objectionable to Davenant’s mind was the conditional language attached to the affirmation of Christ’s universal death. He rejected the idea that any unbeliever could benefit from the death of Christ while persisting in unbelief throughout his or her entire life.104 Further, if the semi-​Pelagians simply meant to say that those who persisted in unbelief until death could have benefited from the death of Christ had they believed, Davenant concluded that the semi-​Pelagian way of expressing things was “confused and obscure” (incondite et obscure). Additionally, if the semi-​ Pelagians meant that Christ offered himself to obtain (impetraret) pardon and life for those whom God considered qua persistently and ultimately unbelieving and impenitent, then that would be false and erroneous. By way of illustration, Davenant noted that a physician neither wills nor considers restoring a patient under the supposition that the patient will reject such a remedy. The last and “most grievous” (gravissimum) of errors—​an error that struck at the heart of the difference between Pelagianism and Augustinianism as Davenant saw it—​was the denial that Christ’s death is the primary

The Extent of Christ’s Work from the Early Church  37 differentiating cause between those who do believe (i.e., the elect) and those who do not believe (i.e., the nonelect).105 This error was previously rejected in both the Canons of Dordt (Second Main Doctrine, Rej. I–​III) and the British suffrage (On the Second Art., Rej. I–​II). Foreshadowing his final thesis regarding the efficacy of Christ’s death later in his De Morte Christi, Davenant took umbrage with the semi-​Pelagians and their denial of unconditional election and the attendant efficacy in the death of Christ. Augustine, along with the other orthodox, insisted that “persevering faith,” which connects the death of Christ to individuals, is a gift of mercy given to the elect, not bestowed on account of free choice.106 Davenant summarized the status quaestionis among the Pelagians and Augustinians this way: “The controversy directly regards the grace of predestination and free choice, and obliquely touches upon the death of Christ, inasmuch as the orthodox, assigning a reason why it eventually brings salvation to some persons, always ascend to divine predestination; the Pelagians descend to the human choice.”107 Davenant, again, noted that the real center of controversy between the Augustinians and the Pelagians did not revolve around whether Christ died for all but that the latter on the basis of this fact inferred that “there is no special will of God in predestinating, by which God effectually produces that faith in the elect by which they individually apply for salvation to themselves that death of Christ which was endured for all, but they suspend it on the uncertain chance [alea] of human choice.”108 Put another way, the true point of difference between the Pelagians and the Augustinians was whether God equally willed to redeem all by means of Christ’s death, and whether such efficacy was grounded ultimately on the will of human beings or the unconditional decree of God in predestination. Davenant’s construal of the views of Augustine and Prosper would no doubt have been controversial among some of his fellow Reformed theologians, as his own polemic against (presumably) Bogerman makes clear. Yet his interpretation of fifth-​century Augustinianism was hardly novel. In his debate with the Lutheran Samuel Huber, the Reformed theologian Kimedoncius laid out the state of the Augustinian controversy in a fashion very similar to Davenant. Like Davenant, Kimedoncius claimed that Augustine and his followers were “falsely” (falso) accused of teaching that Christ died for the elect alone.109 Instead, Kimedoncius believed (confusing Prosper’s writings with Augustine’s) that Augustine held to what would be known as the Lombardian formula: “With respect to the sufficiency of the price, it is a redemption for all; with respect to its effect, it is not a redemption for all, but for

38  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism no more than the members of Christ.”110 The German Reformed theologian Pareus similarly argued that Augustine was falsely accused of holding that Christ died only for the elect: “This first article [which read, “That our Lord Jesus Christ did not suffer or die for the redemption of all men”] was also falsely imposed upon Augustine.”111 In light of these two earlier examples of interpreting Augustine in a fashion similar to Davenant’s own interpretation, Davenant’s reading appears less novel than recent scholarship would seem to indicate, whether or not such an interpretation was accurate.112 Davenant’s survey of the period is much more nuanced than modern surveys of the same period. For example, his interpretation of Prosper’s theology is notably different from Rainbow’s, which argued that Prosper’s theology moved away from a “strict Augustinianism.”113 Rainbow’s argument rests on the assumption that (1) the two interpretations offered by Prosper on how to understand God willing the salvation of all human beings (as, say, in 1 Tim. 2:4) are in tension or even contradictory and (2) that Prosper in his early work defended Augustine’s “view of salvation limit[ing] the extent of the death of Christ to the predestined.”114 While Davenant does not explicitly address the former point,115 he does explicitly address the evidence adduced by Rainbow for the latter claim. Rainbow assumes that Prosper held the belief the Pelagians accused Augustine as teaching—​that he taught that Christ died for the elect alone—​though it is clear that Prosper does not grant this accusation in his response. Davenant himself explains, “Prosper meets these [Pelagian] objections [to Augustine], not by maintaining that Christ suffered only for the elect, but by showing whence it arises that the passion of Christ is profitable and saving to the elect alone; namely, because these only, by a gift of special grace, obtain persevering faith, by which they are enabled to apply to themselves the death of Christ.”116 Whereas Rainbow simply assumed that the early Prosper agreed with the propositions attributed to Augustine by the Pelagians, Davenant observed that Prosper did not in fact grant the truth of such attributions. Rainbow’s early Prosper/​late Prosper reading is significantly undermined if Davenant’s reading of the tradition is sound. Another argument for reading Prosper as initially affirming that Christ died for the elect alone has been offered by Haykin: In a letter to Augustine, he also challenged the view of the so-​called Semi-​ Pelagians that “the propitiation which is found in the mystery of the blood of Christ was offered for all men without exception.” From the letter it is clear that Prosper does not agree with this statement, and Augustine does

The Extent of Christ’s Work from the Early Church  39 not refute Prosper in his reply. In his later career, Prosper appears to have either softened this commitment to definite atonement, or even rejected it in favor of an advocacy of the universal salvific will of God based on his reading of 1 Timothy 2:4.117

Haykin misreads Prosper’s Letter to Augustine. First, it is not “clear [that] Prosper does not agree with” the view of the semi-​Pelagians that Christ died for all.118 Here is the fuller context of the Prosper quotation in question: For this is their [viz., the semi-​Pelagians’] argument and profession: that every human being has sinned by sinning in Adam, and no person is saved by their own works, but by regeneration through the grace of God: nevertheless, God put forward Christ as a propitiation which is in the sacrament of the blood of Christ for all human beings without exception in order that whosoever wishes to come to faith and baptism is able to be saved.119

In the first sentence, which begins an enumeration of the semi-​Pelagian positions on grace, Prosper says that the semi-​Pelagians also teach that “every human being has sinned in Adam, and no person is saved by his or her own works, but by regeneration through the grace of God.” Are we to believe that just because Prosper lists this as a position of his opponents that he must disagree with it? Haykin assumes, following Blacketer, that what Prosper explains as the view of his opponents is rejected by Prosper. Yet Davenant himself warned against Haykin’s false assumption: Therefore, it should be observed that when Hilary and Prosper are noting the opinion of the semi-​Pelagians, many things are mixed together, some of which agree with the truth, and others savor of error. When, therefore, they record that the semi-​Pelagians declared that all people sinned in Adam, and that our Lord Jesus Christ died for the whole human race, and some other things, they do not note these ideas as the errors of the semi-​Pelagians, but in order to show how far they agree with the orthodox, and so that they may explain the whole order and connection of the semi-​Pelagian doctrine. Those, then, greatly err who think that all the things which are attributed to the semi-​Pelagians by Prosper and Hilary are erroneous and Pelagian.120

Furthermore, Haykin fails to address the remarks Prosper gives regarding the semi-​Pelagian opinion later on in the letter.121 As Davenant noted, what

40  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism Prosper rejects is not the position that Christ died for all. Rather, the objection seems to be the attached condition, “even if he lives his whole life in complete estrangement from [God],” coupled with a denial of unconditional predestination, resulting in a predestination to faith which is dependent upon free choice.122 Haykin at one point confesses, “Prosper admitted that Christ may be said to have died ‘for all’ because he took on the human nature that all humanity shares and because of the ‘greatness and value’ of his redeeming death,” while also teaching that “Christ ‘was crucified only for those who were to profit by his death,’ that is, only the elect.”123 This position, ironically enough, sounds quite similar to the position Davenant himself would go on to defend in De Morte Christi.

2.2.2  Faustus, Lucidus, and the Synod of Arles After looking at Augustine and Prosper, Davenant recounted the case of Lucidus, a presbyter whose views were condemned at the Synod of Arles (c. 473) and again at the Synod of Lyon a year later.124 Lucidus, if Faustus of Riez is to be believed, taught that Christ did not die for all human beings.125 Writing to Lucidus, Faustus claimed that it was anathema to teach “that Christ did not die on behalf of all human beings, nor wish all human beings to be saved.”126 In light of Lucidus’s continued opposition to Faustus and Faustus’s via media, Faustus convened the Synod of Arles in order to reject Augustinian predestinarianism. Notably, the Council included both northern and southern Gauls, the latter presumably more sympathetic to Pelagius than to Faustus. Regardless, the various bishops from Gaul at the Synod demanded a recantation from Lucidus, which Lucidus wrote in a letter in which he subscribed to a list of theses and anathemas. One such anathema was the notion that “Christ our Lord and Savior did not incur death for the salvation of all.”127 Positively, Lucidus confessed (or was made to confess!) that Christ “offered the price of [his] death for all.”128 Following the Council of Arles was the Council of Lyons, at which Augustinian predestinarianism was further condemned. Faustus gave some insight into the role of the Synod of Lyon in his letter to Pope Leontius in the preface to his De Gratia Dei: “Indeed, after the subscribing of the council of Arles, when new errors were discovered, the Synod of Lyon demanded that a few things be added to this work [De Gratia Dei].”129 Whatever the precise judgments declared at

The Extent of Christ’s Work from the Early Church  41 the Synod of Lyon, what is clear is that the language of Christ dying for the elect alone was condemned. Davenant’s interpretation of this whole event is not what one might expect, given that the outcome of these synods supports his own thesis regarding the catholicity of his position. To begin with, Davenant cast doubt on the reliability of the events as they come to us largely on account of Faustus’s testimony: “Those things which are commended [venditantur] in the name of these Councils are not of great importance [magni momenti], since for the most part they rest merely on the veracity of the heretic Faustus.”130 Davenant supported his suspicion owing to the fact that the only surviving document setting forth the decrees of the Council of Arles is the letter written by Faustus and subscribed to by Lucidus. Further, Davenant noted that the statutes commended for preaching in Lucidus’s letter are not found among the canons of any Council of Lyon. Davenant was skeptical that “so many learned men could be deceived by Faustus” and his book De Gratia Dei.131 As a matter of history, Davenant was right to note the scarcity of surviving evidence regarding the whole Lucidus situation, including the proceedings of the two councils.132 Yet Ralph Mathisen makes a good case that Faustus held a high reputation among his Gallican brethren, concluding, “The overall success of Faustus in promulgating his views is seen in the high respect in which he was held in sixth-​century Gaul, even by those who opposed him on individual points.”133 In fact, according to Mathisen, only a single possible example of “opposition to Faustus’s anti-​predestinarian views” survives.134 Whatever the merits of Davenant’s hesitation to trust Faustus’s account of the events, Davenant’s chief concern is to set aside any prejudice that would attribute too much authority “to the bare name of synods, about which we have nothing certain.”135 Because of the language of subsequent theologians who clearly used the supposed anathematized language of Christ dying for the elect alone, Davenant is skeptical of the history and authority of these synods.

2.3  The Early Medieval Period In his survey of the period following the Lucidus incident, Davenant proved that theologians such as Remigius of Rheims, Gregory the Great, and Haimo of Halberstadt had few qualms about using particularistic language in their interpretation of seemingly universal biblical texts.136 Davenant cited a few

42  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism places in Remigius’s commentary on the Pauline Epistles where Remigius interpreted the “for all” biblical passages as referring to the elect alone.137 Davenant added that theologians after Lucidus and Faustus were free to speak in differing ways. This is apparent from Remigius’s comment on Heb. 2:9 (“that he should taste death for all”): “Some doctors understand this absolutely: for all those whom he tasted death, that is, for the elect predestined to eternal life. But others understand it generally: he tasted death for all believers and unbelievers.”138 Remigius interpreted Prosper as holding to the latter position.139 As Davenant pointed out, in the very same homily Pope Gregory the Great used both universal and particular language respecting Christ’s death.140 Not unlike Remigius, Davenant observed that Haimo, in his commentary on 2 Cor. 5, spoke similarly in both ways, also appealing to Prosper’s language at one point.141 In short, Davenant highlighted the differing modes of speaking about the extent of Christ’s death among those in this period as evidence for the limited authority of the Councils of Arles and Lyon. While Davenant did not think that any theologian sought to exclude the sufficiency of Christ’s death from the nonelect, he admitted that the language condemned by the two synods—​Christ dying for the elect alone—​continued to be used by theologians. It is worth emphasizing again, however, that Davenant did not interpret the particularist language of these theologians as importing any other notion than the limited efficacy or application of Christ’s death to the elect alone. The final controversial episode Davenant discussed in his historical survey involves Gottschalk of Orbais, the catalyst of significant debate over the extent of Christ’s redeeming work in Carolingian Europe.142 Known for his strong emphasis on predestination and divine sovereignty, Gottschalk clearly limited the extent of Christ’s death to the elect alone.143 Davenant quotes a letter of Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, wherein Hincmar recounts to Pope Nicholas I Gottschalk’s belief that Jesus Christ was not crucified and did not die for the redemption of the whole world but only for those who are to be saved.144 Davenant rightly alleged that Gottschalk taught that Christ died for the predestinated alone.145 At the Council of Mainz (848), Gottschalk defended his views on predestination to no avail, as he was condemned for heresy. His views were also condemned by Hincmar a year later at the Council of Quierzy (849), yet, as Davenant noted, Hincmar’s own theology, along with that of others who affirmed that there was no one for whom Christ did not die,146 was also deemed unorthodox by Remigius

The Extent of Christ’s Work from the Early Church  43 of Lyon and others at the Council of Valence in 855.147 The Synod concluded that it can be rightly said only that Christ died for three classes (ordines) of human beings: (1) “the elect and those predestined to life”; (2) “those faithful who rightly and piously approach the grace of baptism . . . being absolved from their sins . . . but lose their faith, persevering in their sins”; and (3) those initially outside the church “who still in unbelief are nevertheless to be called to faith by the mercy of God” and are brought into the church, though they may or may not persevere in the faith.148 According to the Synod and the opponents of Hincmar, Christ cannot, however, be said to have died for those who will not have believed (non crediderit). Davenant made two important observations related to his overall thesis that the previous theological tradition had, by and large, extended Christ’s death beyond the scope of the elect. First, Davenant observed that the opponents of Hincmar did not confine the death of Christ to the predestined alone. Consistent with the Augustinian position that Christ’s death is applied to the baptized nonelect, the Council of Valence taught that the death of Christ is extended to those nonelect who do not persevere in the faith. Second, Davenant noted that the debate never concluded with the charge of heresy. Instead, the peace of the church was protected over and against the accusations of heresy. Davenant concluded, “If only we had before our eyes in this litigious age this specimen of Christian charity and modesty, by which that storm, as it appears to me, which was caused by the preaching of Gottschalk, was so happily settled and put to rest.”149 Davenant suggested that the controversy over the extent of Christ’s death ended after the Gottschalk incident, not to be taken up again until the early modern period. Although granting that the medieval schoolmen who followed Gottschalk were known to be litigious, Davenant writes that they “were unwilling to renew this subject,” being content with Lombard’s sufficiency/​efficiency formula.150

2.4  Scholasticism and the Lombardian Formula Serving as the standard theological text of medieval scholasticism, Lombard’s Sentences was the natural starting point for medieval and early modern discussion and debate on the extent of Christ’s atoning work. Lombard’s famous formula comes to us in these words:

44  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism Christ is the priest, as he is also the victim and the price of our reconciliation. He offered himself on the altar of the cross not to the devil, but to the triune God, and he did so for all with regard to the sufficiency of the price, but only for the elect with regard to its efficacy, because he brought about salvation only for the predestined.151

Considering the language of the early and medieval church, Lombard’s wording summarizes well the general approach to the extent of Christ’s redemptive work as it was understood during the scholastic period. God offered his Son on behalf of (pro) all human beings insofar as the sufficiency of the price is concerned, but for the elect alone insofar as the efficacy of Christ’s death is concerned. Not only did such language approximate Prosper’s use of the sufficiency/​efficacy distinction, but it also captured some of the ambiguity found among the earlier theologians who used both universal and particularist language pertaining to the extent of Christ’s work. Early modern theologians were well aware that the medieval scholastics embraced the sufficiency/​efficacy distinction with little variation.152 This is one reason the Lombardian formula became shorthand as a distinction of the “scholastics” or “schoolmen.”153 Even those early modern Reformed theologians who were not altogether satisfied with such language admitted both its antiquity as well as its popularity among the earlier theologians.154 For example, Alting observed that certain Reformed theologians who rejected the formula, such as Beza and Johann Piscator, believed that their fellow Reformed theologians embraced the distinction on account of its prevalence and ancient pedigree.155 When comparing the various citations from the medieval scholastics by both Roman Catholics and Protestants on the Lombardian formula, one quickly gets the impression that there were standard medieval loci classici for the formula. Pope Innocent III’s comment in On the Mysteries of the Mass is one such common citation: “The blood of Christ was poured out for only the predestined as regards its efficacy, but for all human beings with regard to its sufficiency.”156 The most important figure from this period is, not surprisingly, Thomas Aquinas, whom the Reformed theologian Kimedoncius called “the leading scholastic.”157 Aquinas, to whom Davenant was especially indebted, addressed the distinction in multiple places.158 One oft-​cited remark comes from his commentary on Revelation where he distinguished between two types of redemption:

The Extent of Christ’s Work from the Early Church  45 Concerning the redemption accomplished by the passion of God we speak in two ways: either according to its sufficiency, and so his passion redeemed all, because considered in itself, he delivered all; for it is sufficient to redeem and save all, even if there were infinite worlds . . . or according to its efficacy, and so he did not redeem all by his passion because not all adhere to the redeemer and therefore not all have the efficacy of redemption.159

Even Duns Scotus affirmed such a distinction, though not without his own peculiar voluntarist take.160 Late medieval scholastics such as Durandus of Saint-​Pourçain, Denis the Carthusian, and Petrus Galatinus, to name but a few, were also regularly cited by early modern theologians as teaching the Lombardian formula.161 Davenant noted that although the scholastics were known for and able to debate very minute doctrinal matters, yet there was a striking lack of controversy over the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death in medieval scholasticism.162 While virtually all the medieval schoolmen affirmed that Christ died for all sufficiently, but for the elect alone effectually, they did not spend a significant amount of time debating the distinction. It would be the polemics of the early modern period that would place significant strain on the distinction, demanding further clarity on its meaning. Nevertheless, it is worth making a few observations about the language regarding the sufficiency of Christ’s death one finds in Aquinas, being a representative of much of the medieval tradition. First, when Aquinas spoke about the sufficiency of Christ’s death, he did not understand it as merely of infinite value.163 To be sure, he spoke of the superabundant value of Christ’s death on account of the dignity of the offeror, Jesus Christ.164 Yet there is also an actual ordination of Christ’s work for the salvation of all mankind on condition of faith and the use of the sacraments.165 Moreover, Aquinas clearly affirmed a universal satisfaction of sins. The merit of Christ “has the same relation to all men,” although regarding its application, the merit of Christ is efficacious only for some.166 Aquinas raised the following objection: “If Christ made sufficient satisfaction for the sins of the human race, then it seems unjust that human beings suffer the penalties” that sin introduced.167 Yet for Aquinas, there is no injustice on God’s part if those for whom satisfaction is made are damned because they do not apply the remedy to themselves.168 Aquinas continues, “The fact that not all human beings are renewed does not depend upon the inadequacy of the medicine of the one renewing, although it is sufficient in itself to renew all

46  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism those who have or may have a human nature.”169 The effect of Christ’s merit and satisfaction is applied only when each person (unumquemque) is conjoined and incorporated (coniungitur et incorporatur) into Christ by faith.170 Understanding this ordination of Christ to make a satisfaction for the sins of all human beings sheds important light upon Aquinas’s description of this price of our redemption as a “universal cause of salvation” or “universal cause of the forgiveness of sins.”171 Although commentators have found this conception confusing,172 it simply meant, as Davenant himself explained, that Christ’s death “can cure and save each and every individual” and that “the production of this determinate effect in each individual should require a determinate application.”173 Just as Adam’s first sin was the universal cause of our damnation, so Christ’s death is the universal cause of salvation for all human beings. A universal cause of salvation is a universal remedy for sins.

2.5  Conclusion Davenant’s survey of the patristic and early medieval periods attempted to prove that, at least generally speaking, the catholic church extended the death of Christ as a remedy for sins beyond the elect. Lying in the background of this thesis were alternative early modern readings of the patristic period, which, in Davenant’s mind, misread the sources. Davenant demonstrated that while the semi-​Pelagians charged Augustine and his immediate followers with denying that Christ died for all, the latter did, in fact, affirm that Christ died for all, even though Christ’s death is savingly applied only to the elect.174 His history of the controversy also served to emphasize the flexibility of orthodox language. A theologian might, as Pope Gregory did, use both particular and universal language regarding the extent of Christ’s death in order to highlight various aspects of the atoning work of Christ without being deemed unorthodox. Along these lines, Davenant employed the sufficiency/​efficacy distinction to help make sense of the variety of universal and particularist language found in the Augustinian tradition. When Augustinians spoke of Christ having died for all, such language indicated that God intended Christ to die for all human beings such that a universal remedy is made by which all might be saved. Yet in accordance with particularist language, these same theologians understood the remedy as savingly applied only to those for whom God has infallibly decreed, on account of Christ’s death, to apply such a remedy to

The Extent of Christ’s Work from the Early Church  47 themselves by persevering faith. Hence, although the Augustinians could and did sometimes claim that Christ died for the elect alone, this claim was not to be interpreted in such exclusive terms as to deny that Christ died for all human beings in the aforementioned sense, but rather to emphasize the fact that Christ died savingly for the elect alone.

3 The Lombardian Formula in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Century 3.1  Introduction When early modern theologians broached the question “For whom did Christ die?” they usually included some response—​ either positive or negative—​to the scholastic distinction between the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death. This distinction became especially common following Peter Lombard’s Sentences, as it was commented upon and discussed in the scholastic period. As noted in the previous chapter, Lombard may have been the codifier of the distinction between Christ’s sufficiency and efficacy, yet he was not its originator. In this chapter, we will focus on the Lombardian formula (as it is sometimes called), noting its reception in the early modern period prior to Davenant’s own time. Historians of theology have long recognized the importance Lombard’s distinction played in the debates that arose in the early modern period on the extent of Christ’s death.1 Surprisingly, however, relatively few have sought to trace Reformed theology’s use, modification, and sometimes even rejection of the formula through the early modern period. One notable exception is P. L. Rouwendal’s essay on Calvin’s position relative to the Lombardian formula.2 Rouwendal, largely relying on Gisbertus Voetius’s taxonomy of early modern Reformed positions on the extent of Christ’s atoning work, argues that there are three prevailing Reformed answers to the question asking for whom Christ died: (1) particular, (2) hypothetical universalist, and (3) classical. According to Rouwendal, the classical position represents the standard Lombardian distinction between the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death. The first two are portrayed as deviations from the classic formula. The particularist position denies that Christ died for all, thus making sufficiency hypothetical (“it could have been sufficient).” The hypothetical universalist position, on the other hand, does not account for divine predestination regarding the design of Christ’s John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism. Michael J. Lynch, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197555149.003.0003

The Lombardian Formula  49 death. According to Rouwendal, it is the classic position that has not received the attention it is due, especially in the debates surrounding Calvin’s own position. This chapter will show that Rouwendal’s essay, though helpful in emphasizing the importance of the Lombardian formula in Reformed orthodoxy, is not without serious problems, most of which revolve around his misinterpretation of early modern hypothetical universalism and his taxonomy. His inaccurate taxonomy is closely tied to his reliance on Voetius’s classification, which has its own set of drawbacks. Through historical investigation, this chapter presents an alternative picture to the one painted by Rouwendal, and by extension Voetius. The classic position identified by Rouwendal was not some tertium quid between English hypothetical universalism and what he calls the particularist position, but rather is an earlier form of hypothetical universalism before the debates with the Remonstrants and Lutherans. In fact, the particularist position is a reaction against the “classical” position precisely because the latter was interpreted as entailing the distinctive element of hypothetical universalism, an ordained sufficiency. Put simply, Davenant, representing English hypothetical universalism, taught what amounts to the classical position outlined by Rouwendal, and the hypothetical universalist position as outlined by Rouwendal is not the position taught by Davenant.3 Continuing the narrative set in the previous chapter, this chapter brings into focus the Lombardian formula’s reception history among the various early modern debates that occurred prior to Davenant’s first foray into the debate at the Synod of Dordt. The first signs of controversy surrounding the Lombardian formula emerged during the religious and political tension between the Lutheran and Reformed churches leading up to the Colloquy of Montbéliard. Another significant catalyst for the ongoing need to comment on and clarify the received distinction was the disagreement between Jacob Arminius and William Perkins. This disagreement foreshadowed the Remonstrant controversy in the Netherlands, which was the immediate context for both the Synod of Dordt and its Second Head regarding the extent of Christ’s death and Davenant’s De Morte Christi. A survey of these three important events relative to the reception history of the Lombardian formula among the Reformed will provide crucial background to Davenant’s own writings on the topic.

50  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism

3.2  The Early Modern Period and the Lombardian Formula 3.2.1  Reformation Period As with the post-​Lombardian medieval period, the Lombardian formula as a standard scholastic distinction was relatively uncontroversial during the early part of the Reformation. When the Reformers did touch on the distinction, just as in the medieval period, it was often in the service of biblical exegesis. Early modern Reformed theologians often explained the formula’s popularity in such terms, and this is confirmed by their own use of the formula. In his edition of Zacharias Ursinus’s Heidelberg Catechism lectures, David Pareus explained the distinction between the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death primarily as a mode of reconciling apparently contradictory claims in Scripture.4 As Pareus put it, “In some places of Scripture, Christ is said to die for all and for the whole world . . . and not in a few places is Christ said to die, pray, be handed over for many, the elect, his people, the church, the sheep, etc.”5 In order to deal with these antinomies of Scripture, Pareus pointed out that some reconcile these seemingly contradictory passages by appealing to the distinction between the sufficiency and efficacy of the death of Christ.6 Pareus himself, in this way, reconciled such passages in Scripture.7 Even Heinrich Alting, who denied the received distinction, understood that the Reformed regularly used the distinction to reconcile Scripture.8 In short, the Lombardian formula was as much a hermeneutical tool as anything else. In his commentary on the Psalms, Martin Luther, for instance, employed the distinction in the place of other, more violent (violentior) and laborious (laboriose) interpretations of the text.9 John Calvin explicitly brought up the distinction at least three times.10 Twice Calvin mentioned the distinction in the context of 1 Jn. 2:2 (“and he himself is the propitiation for our sins; not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world”), although he did not think that the distinction was relevant to that particular text: Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I omit the madness of the fanatics, who under this pretext extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a fantasy is unworthy of a refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Although

The Lombardian Formula  51 I grant that that dictum is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage. For John’s aim was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church.11

Calvin’s Italian contemporary Peter Martyr Vermigli similarly granted the truth of the distinction.12 Notably, there is very little debate during this part of the Reformation regarding the extent of Christ’s satisfaction. Moreover, the Reformed in this period did not attempt to jettison the Lombardian formula. This, however, as we will see, did not remain the case as Reformed theology began to confessionalize and interact with the distinct and burgeoning Lutheran movement. Near the end of his history of the controversy surrounding the extent of Christ’s atonement, Davenant quoted a variety of early Reformed authors who were quite comfortable speaking of Christ’s redeeming work in accordance with a universal sufficiency. He wrote: The Doctors of the Reformed Church also from the beginning spoke in such a way about the death of Christ that they provided no occasion of reviving the dispute [over the extent of the atonement]. For they taught that the death of Christ was proposed and offered for all, but apprehended and applied to the obtaining of eternal life only by believers. . . . This one thing I wish to be observed: our orthodox Doctors so explained the doctrine of election and reprobation that the decree concerning the electing of certain individual persons to the infallible obtaining of eternal life and passing by others would not infringe upon the universality of the redemption accomplished by the death of Christ.13

Davenant cited Melanchthon, Calvin, Heinrich Bullinger, Benedict Aretius, Wolfgang Musculus, and Girolamo Zanchi.14 Elsewhere, Davenant, along with the other British delegates to Dordt, claimed that the “[e]‌xtending [of] Christ’s death to all, and the Universality of the promise” along with the affirmation of “God’s and Christ’s special intention to Redeem effectually, and to merit effectual Grace only to the Elect” was “the Doctrine of sundry of the famous and learned Writers of the Reformed Churches, as of Melancthon, of Calvin in sundry places, of Musculus, Bullinger, Gualter, Aretius, Ursinus, Sohnius, Pezelius, Mollerus, Paraeus, and others.”15 Only after this initial wave of Reformers, as Davenant himself observed, did Reformed theologians begin to “clearly defend in exclusive terms the proposition: Christ died for the elect alone.”16

52  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism One area that has caused some amount of controversy among modern scholarship is the claim—​made also by many of Davenant’s contemporaries—​ that antecedent elements of English hypothetical universalism can be found in the earlier Reformers.17 This is an assertion worth defending because it will provide further evidence for the catholicity of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism. Consider, for example, Calvin’s language in his Sermons on Deuteronomy.18 Calvin claimed that God’s love is the reason Christ was sent to be a redeemer. For whom was he sent? Glossing Jn. 3:16 (and consonant with his understanding of the passage in his commentary on John’s Gospel), Calvin said that “Jesus Christ offered himself as a redeemer generally for all without exception.”19 Although it might by tempting to read Calvin as not including each and every person under “all without exception,” such a reading goes against the context. Calvin goes on to lay out three degrees of God’s love, with the first degree as the motive for this universal intention. The first degree of God’s love is “extended to all, seeing that Jesus Christ outstretches his arms to call and urge[s]‌both great and small to win them to him,” and respects the “redemption which was acquired in the person of him who gave himself to death for us.”20 This is distinguished by two “special” degrees of love which are shown to “those to whom the gospel is preached” and, third, those whom “he makes to feel the power” of the preached word.21 In this section of Calvin, it is clear that on account of a general love for all human beings, God sent Christ to be a redeemer for all.22 This is Davenant’s ordained sufficiency. One also finds among these earlier Reformed theologians a universal satisfaction for sins. The eminent German Reformer and primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism, Ursinus, in his lectures on the Catechism plainly affirmed a universal satisfaction for the sins of all human beings. In question 20, Ursinus’s imaginary interlocutor posits that if Christ made a satisfaction for the sins of all, all must be saved. Ursinus responds by reaffirming the notion that Christ made a satisfaction for the sins of all people, but he added that its application is suspended upon the condition of belief.23 He then quotes Jn. 3:16. In answer to question 37, the Catechism says that Christ “suffered the wrath of God against the sins of the whole human race,” which Pareus, Ursinus’s student, glossed as “the sense and sustaining of God’s wrath kindled against the sins, not of some human beings, but of the whole race of mankind; whence indeed there is a universality of sin and of God’s wrath suffered by Christ against sin.”24 Note, as well, Ursinus’s comments on question 37.25

The Lombardian Formula  53 Although it is beyond the scope of this study to demonstrate this definitively, unlike the views of many later Reformed theologians after the polemics of the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, earlier Reformed theologians were not only comfortable with the language of the Lombardian formula but often spoke of Christ making satisfaction for the sins of all human beings.26 Moreover, there is a clear notion of an ordained sufficiency, whereby Christ is intentionally sent to be a universal remedy for the sins of all. English hypothetical universalists were one group of seventeenth-​century Reformed theologians who continued using this language.

3.2.2  Late Sixteenth-​Century Lutheran and Reformed Polemics Though a few studies have noted the pre-​Remonstrant debates involving the Reformed and Lutherans on the extent of Christ’s atoning work, most studies give the impression that Arminianism was the main catalyst for heated debate over the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s passion.27 As we intend to show, however, most of the disagreements among the Reformed and Remonstrants in the next century were foreshadowed in the previous century. One cannot fully appreciate the seventeenth-​century Reformed debates without understanding the sixteenth-​century Lutheran-​Reformed polemical context. The first significant strain placed upon the limits of the Lombardian formula came to the fore amid the polemics of Lutheran and Reformed theologians. In the latter part of the sixteenth century, the doctrine of predestination (among other doctrines) became a major point of dispute among the Lutheran and Reformed churches. Such theological tensions came to a head in 1586 at the Colloquy of Montbéliard, where Theodore Beza and Jacob Andreae debated various disputed points separating the Lutheran and Reformed churches.28 Though many different doctrines were at play in the debate over predestination, the Lutherans pressed the Reformed on both God’s will for the salvation of the nonelect as well as what relationship Christ’s work had to the nonelect. One particular point of dispute centered on the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s atoning work.29 There were important exegetical differences between Beza and Andreae. Beza interpreted those passages in Scripture that speak of Christ’s death in seemingly universal terms as excluding the reprobate. For example, at the Colloquy he understood “world” in Jn. 3:16 and in 1 Jn. 2:2 to refer

54  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism to the elect, both Jewish and Gentile, rather than each and every human being.30 Beza rhetorically asked whether the Lutherans understood Jn. 1:29 (“Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”) as teaching that God actually took away (or forgave) the sins of every human being.31 He objected to Andreae’s teaching that Christ made satisfaction for all sins in such a way that no one was damned on account of any other sins but the sin of unbelief.32 Beza considered it intolerable (intolerabilis) that “Christ died for the damned” and that “human beings are not to be damned on account of sin.”33 It was at the Colloquy when debate over the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death assumed center stage. Andreae responded to Beza’s objections by reaffirming the idea that unbelievers are damned not on account of their sin but on account of their rejection of Christ.34 Andreae appealed to the Lombardian formula in support of the notion that Christ “took away” the sins of every human being. He insisted that “Christ satisfied sufficiently for all human beings” even though “the greatest part of humanity disregards Christ.”35 Beza siezed upon Andreae’s mention of the Lombardian formula as an opportunity to express his dissatisfaction with it. This constitutes, perhaps, the first published rejection of the formula by a Reformed theologian. Beza admitted that while there is a sense in which the formula might be rightly affirmed, it is nevertheless exceedingly ambiguous, even barbarous.36 An ambiguity that would cause not only a rift between the Lutheran and Reformed theologians but also among the latter themselves was what it meant that Christ died “for” (pro) all human beings sufficiently.37 Beza rejected the wording of the scholastic distinction. According to him, whether the pro entailed an intention on God’s part for Christ to suffer for all human beings or the actual effect of the passion of Christ, both options could refer only to the elect.38 Thus, it cannot be said, in any proper sense, that Christ died for all human beings. Yet Beza, like Andreae, did not deny that Christ’s oblation was able to satisfy a thousand worlds if God had wished to show compassion on them.39 This is the sense in which Beza affirmed the sufficient/​efficient distinction. Still, Beza denied that Christ suffered for the sins of the nonelect. Given its ambiguity and poor wording, he clearly thought that the Lombardian distinction had very little usefulness in determining the question of for whom Christ died, calling the distinction at one point a “tergiversation.”40

The Lombardian Formula  55 One of Beza’s chief concerns was with Andreae’s language that Christ equally died and satisfied for the sins of both the reprobate and the elect.41 This concern would eventually become a central point dividing the Remonstrants and Contra-​Remonstrants. According to Beza, the underlying differences between the Reformed and Lutheran camps involved the doctrines of (1) eternal predestination and (2) God’s will to save each person, which entailed a universal grace and power to receive that grace in the Lutheran scheme.42 The debate did not reach a resolution. Argument over the extent of Christ’s satisfaction did not end at the Colloquy. Many smaller disputes between the Reformed and Lutherans ensued. In 1590, the Lutheran Samuel Huber, whose unorthodoxy would eventually get him removed from his teaching post at the University of Wittenberg, began to attack the Reformed.43 Andreae’s assault on Reformed theology was relatively tame compared to Huber’s. In that year, Huber published forty-​seven theses in a Compendium of Theses on Universal Redemption of the Human Race against the Calvinists.44 He named four Reformed theologians whom he especially had in his sights (along with their publications): Beza,45 Johann Jacob Grynaeus,46 Pareus,47 and Daniel Tossanus.48 Huber noted, probably with Pareus especially in mind, that some of the Reformed, in order to hide their wickedness, appealed to the Lombardian formula in response to the question of for whom Christ died.49 According to Huber, when the Reformed affirmed the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all, they equivocated on its meaning.50 Huber interpreted the Reformed as simply denying that Christ wished to take upon himself the sins of the whole human race.51 One can understand Huber’s frustration. What emerges in this period is differing approaches among the Reformed on the extent of Christ’s atoning work. Pareus, for example, consistently argued for and employed the Lombardian formula in answer to the question of for whom Christ died. Beza, as we have already seen, did not find the formula useful and rejected its wording, while Tossanus consistently emphasized the efficacy of Christ’s death, maintaining that Christ died efficaciously only for the elect.52 Tossanus did not deny that Christ paid a sufficient price for the whole world, yet Christ effectually redeemed the elect alone.53 Still, the continued emphasis by Reformed theologians was on the efficacy of Christ’s death as limited to the elect alone—​hardly unexpected given the views of their Lutheran interlocutors. The Reformed were attempting to provide a united front against their theological adversaries, but even in this early period they were not in total agreement among themselves. Although Huber treated the

56  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism Reformed as being united, they were developing distinct approaches to the question of the extent of Christ’s work. That the Reformed and Lutherans could not agree on the state of the question further enhanced misunderstanding. Although Huber thought that the controversy hinged on the sufficiency of Christ’s death, the Reformed saw the matter differently. According to Pareus, the status quaestionis concerned the efficacy or application of Christ’s death. In Pareus’s words, “The question does not concern the value of the sacrifice of Christ but concerns its actual efficacy, that is, not whether the sins of all and every person are able to be expiated; but whether all are actually expiated.”54 Elsewhere he wrote that “the question is properly of the efficacy and actual participation of these fruits.”55 In other words, the Reformed thought that the place of disagreement with the Lutherans on the extent of Christ’s death revolved around whether or not it was efficaciously applied to all human beings, not its sufficiency. Pareus conceded that it may be truly said that “Christ died absolutely for all human beings, namely, if you consider the sufficiency of the price [λύτρον] and his merit.”56 The Reformed, according to Pareus, were falsely accused of simply denying that Christ died for all, when they actually distinguished between the value of the merit of Christ’s death and the efficacy and fruition of the benefits, with the latter benefits limited to the elect of the world.57 Pareus’s real objection was with Andreae’s assumption that the death of Christ actually reconciled all human beings.58 This is why Kimedoncius also saw the status quaestionis as touching efficacy, claiming that his adversaries, the Lutherans, teach that Christ satisfied for each and every person’s sins not only sufficiently but also effectually.59 In other words, according to Pareus and Kimedoncius, some of the Lutherans taught that Christ died effectually for all.60 Beza perceived that the result of such an actual reconciliation acquired for all led to what he thought was the absurd and horrendous conclusion that the damnation of all human beings is on account of unbelief, rather than sin more generally. Huber’s many publications after the initial flurry between Andreae and Beza only further justified the Reformed interpretation of the Lutherans. In his theses on the death of Christ, published in 1590, Huber arguably went beyond Andreae’s position. For example, Huber claimed that all have been truly freed from all sin and condemnation and received into God’s grace and bosom, including those who died in unbelief before the incarnation.61 Moreover, both believers and unbelievers have been equally forgiven of their sins and equally saved, but those who resist such forgiveness are condemned

The Lombardian Formula  57 a second time (iterum).62 Such teaching was rejected by the Reformed as outside the bounds of orthodoxy, with Pareus likening Huber’s theology (along with Francesco Pucci’s similar views) to Pelagianism.63 Eventually Huber was condemned by his fellow Lutherans for teaching a universal justification, among other aberrations. Yet the point of contention among the two theological traditions can hardly be overstated. While the Lutherans thought that the Reformed denied the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all human beings, the state of the question in the estimation of Reformed theologians was not about the sufficiency of Christ’s death but concerned its efficacy—​to whom the saving grace of Christ’s work is destined to be actually applied and to whom this grace is actually applied. While the Reformed answered these latter questions univocally, cracks already began to emerge among them concering whether they all agreed on the nature of the sufficiency of Christ’s death, and whether and in what way Christ can be said to have died for all human beings. Such cracks began with Beza’s questioning of the Lombardian formula but came to full fruition in Johann Piscator’s denial that Christ sufficiently died for all human beings. As early as 1595 Piscator, the longtime professor of theology at Herborn whose commentaries on Scripture were generally admired by the Reformed, argued that Christ in no way died for the reprobate.64 In England, the controversial Peter Baro picked up on this teaching and publicly rejected it in his sermon on the Lambeth Articles in January 1596.65 Baro had good reason to be alarmed for, in 1594, a Church of England minister named William Burton similarly denied that the death of Christ was sufficient for the nonelect.66 Burton noted that the schoolmen often appealed to the Lombardian formula in answering the question for whom Christ died. However, Burton observed that “this distinction of sufficiencie and efficacie, is thought, and that of very learned Divines, to bee a very idle distinction, and too weake to beare away the burden of this question: for if Christ dyed sufficiently for all, he dyed effectually for all: and if it be not effectuall, how is it sufficient.”67 Burton maintained that these unnamed “very learned Divines” “hold that the efficacie of his death, and the sufficiencie of his death be all one.”68 Burton, agreeing with these learned Divines—​perhaps thinking of Beza—​concluded that the death of Christ for unbelievers “is neither effectual nor sufficient.”69 Burton rhetorically asked, “What sufficiencie of Christs death can be there imagined for unbeleevers, where there was never any intendement of his death for them?”70 In a side note to this rhetorical question, Burton professed that the death of Christ would have been sufficient for all had he decreed

58  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism it for all.71 This hypothetical sufficiency would become a hallmark of those Reformed theologians who denied that the death of Christ was actually sufficient for the nonelect.72 Debates on the extent of Christ’s satisfaction seemingly subsided near the close of the century, only to arise again with the Remonstrant controversy in the early seventeenth century. Just as with the Lutherans, the center of this next controversy with the Remonstrants, at least from a Reformed perspective, was whether Christ died for all effectually or for the elect alone. It is to this debate that we now turn.

3.2.3  Jacob Arminius and William Perkins Like the Lutheran-​Reformed debates several decades earlier, the Reformed-​ Remonstrant debates chiefly addressed the nature of predestination and reprobation. Yet, as in their debate with the Lutherans, the Reformed believed it was necessary to attack the Remonstrant understanding of the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death. In his well-​ known treatise on the doctrine of predestination (De Praedestinationis Modo et Ordine), written a few years before the Arminian controversy, William Perkins, as if he were writing against the Lutherans a decade earlier, asserted, “[W]‌e willingly admit that Christ died for all (as the Scriptures assert the same thing), but we absolutely deny that Christ died equally for each and every one with respect to God, or that he died for the damned in the same way as for the elect, and that also effectually on God’s part.”73 As Perkins surveyed the theological landscape that had as its immediate background the Cambridge debates over predestination, he saw that the crux of the matter was whether Christ died for the elect in a way that he did not die for the nonelect.74 The Lutherans, including Andreae, and their doctrine of universal grace, loomed in the background of Perkins’s treatment of this question.75 It is indisputable that English Reformed theologians at the turn of the seventeenth century feared that the doctrine of the noted Lutheran proponents of universal grace was crossing the English Channel.76 When the Arminian controversy developed in the Netherlands, arguing as it did for universal grace, it inevitably was read through the lens of the Lutheran writers of the previous century.77 Between 1599 and 1602, Arminius wrote a response to Perkins’s treatise. In this response, one gets a sense of the strain placed on the Lombardian

The Lombardian Formula  59 formula in these debates. Arminius affirmed, as did the Lutherans, that Christ obtained for every man reconciliation and redemption before God.78 In fact, he may have affirmed (as was thought to be the doctrine of another Remonstrant, Adrian Borreus) that all infants of pagan nations who die without actual sin are saved.79 The logic, as Arminius admitted, was built on the assumption that no one is condemned by original sin.80 What theological grounds would Arminius have for such an assumption? “Because,” he wrote, “God has assumed the whole human race into the grace of reconciliation, and has entered into a covenant of grace with Adam and his whole posterity in him.”81 In other words, because of the universality of the covenant of grace, all are forgiven of original guilt. For those theologians who had closely followed the debates with the Lutherans, Huberism would immediately have come to mind. In fact, this is precisely the connection Davenant (among others) made when he read Arminius, even though he confessed to having not read the Lutherans.82 Arminius, however, went to great lengths to distinguish between the obtaining of redemption for all and the application of redemption to the elect alone. This is why, unlike Perkins, Arminius saw the debate as touching not on efficacy but on sufficiency: “You [i.e., Perkins] have mixed efficacy into the argument or objection, when they who bring this objection against you know to distinguish between the death of Christ itself and its application. . . . But what has been urged thus far does not concern its efficacy, but its sufficiency, and the oblation and the universality of that oblation.”83 With regard to the efficacy of Christ’s death, Perkins distinguished between potential and actual efficacy.84 Potential efficacy is defined thus: “[T]‌he price paid [λύτρον] is in itself [in se] sufficient for the redemption of everyone without exception from their sins, even if there were a thousand worlds of human beings.”85 Actual efficacy, on the other hand, is the “price paid [λύτρον] with respect to the intention [consilium] of God and the event itself for the elect alone and the predestined to be freed.”86 Perkins’s distinction between potential and actual efficacy roughly corresponded, respectively, with Davenant’s distinction between a “mere sufficiency” on the one hand and an “ordained sufficiency” along with the “efficacy” of Christ’s death on the other.87 Perkins’s understanding of the Lombardian formula as it was used by the orthodox Fathers is that when they affirmed that Christ died for all, they understood the “sufficiency, common cause, and common nature, which Christ assumed; not its efficacy on the part of God.”88

60  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism Arminius found Perkins’s language confused and misguided. For one, Arminius noted that the language of “potential efficacy” was unknown among theologians. Furthermore, the idea that efficacy can be potential is absurd insofar as efficacy is always actualized, consonant with the way theologians have used the term “efficacy.”89 Arminius did not oppose the substance of the Lombardian formula as expressed by Augustine and Prosper, though he was concerned with Perkins’s apparent denial of the absolute sufficiency of Christ’s death.90 Foreshadowing Davenant’s own distinction between “mere” or “bare” sufficiency and “ordained” sufficiency, Arminius believed that Perkins affirmed a hypothetical sufficiency (as Beza did) but denied an actual sufficiency.91 Arminius summarized Perkins’s view of sufficiency using the contrary-​to-​ fact subjunctive: “The death of Christ would be a sufficient price for the sins of the whole world and of more worlds, if in fact God had wished the price to be offered for all human beings.”92 According to Arminius, in order for the ransom price of Christ to be sufficient for all human beings, it must be offered and paid for all human beings.93 Arminius pointed to Beza’s own objection to the Lombardian formula as evidence for Perkins’s inconsistency in both affirming the Lombardian formula while denying that Christ paid the price for the sins of all human beings.94 In other words, Arminius found Beza’s objection to the Lombardian formula more consistent than Perkins’s affirmation of it. Unfortunately, both Perkins and Arminius were dead by the time Arminius’s response to Perkins’s work on predestination was published in 1612. One can only speculate on what Perkins might have said in response to Arminius’s work. Yet this exchange of ideas between Perkins and Arminius would play an important role in the Remonstrant controversy for the next few decades.95 In response to the earlier Lutheran views on the death of Christ, as well as Arminius’s own teaching, three distinct Reformed positions (excluding the Remonstrant position) developed regarding the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death. These three positions roughly correspond with the three “orthodox” positions identified by Voetius’s taxonomy (though ordered differently) mentioned earlier. The first position emerging from the various disputes is the Bezan position, which denied that Christ can be said to have died sufficiently for all. Even though, as we have seen, Beza’s position is arguably more nuanced than this, his name along with Piscator’s became attached to this view.96 The second position affirmed the wording of the Lombardian

The Lombardian Formula  61 formula but denied that Christ paid the price or offered himself for any except the elect. This view is evident in Perkins, and it is the “mere sufficiency” position to which Davenant would respond in his De Morte Christi. The third position, the hypothetical universalist position, affirmed that Christ was sent on behalf of all human beings to make a universal remedy for sin; this position is exemplified in Pareus and would emerge as a distinct, alternative reading of the Lombardian formula, contradistinguished from the second position. Davenant’s own treatment of the extent of Christ’s death must be understood not only as a rebuttal of the Remonstrant position as addressed principally at the Synod of Dordt, but also and even especially as a response to the first two aforementioned Reformed positions emerging in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century. To better appreciate the context for Davenant’s De Morte Christi, we turn to the events surrounding the Synod of Dordt.

3.2.4  The Hague Conference of 1611 The disputes between Arminius and various fellow Reformed theologians led to what Robert Godfrey called “The Polarization of Dutch Society.”97 In the decade leading up to the Synod of Dordt, Remonstrant and Contra-​ Remonstrant disputes were carried out both in print and in various conferences; eventually only an international synod could deal with the political and theological havoc the debate was creating in the Netherlands and the Reformed world as a whole. Prior to Dordt, the most important of these meetings between the two Dutch parties was the Hague Conference of 1611, or as it was known in Dutch, Schriftelicke Conferentie.98 At this conference, both Remonstrants and Contra-​Remonstrants met to discuss the five well-​known Remonstrant Articles that were drawn up a year earlier.99 Along with Arminius’s own writings, the account of the Hague Conference became an important source—​if not the most important contextual source—​ for Davenant’s own thinking regarding the extent of Christ’s satisfaction.100 In later chapters we will see that the issues raised at the Hague Conference shaped the way Davenant handled the various polemical points relating to the extent of Christ’s atoning work. The Second Remonstrant Article as discussed and debated at The Hague and at Dordt read:

62  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism Hence, Jesus Christ, the savior of the world, died for each and every human being: and merited for all reconciliation and remission of sins through the death of the cross. Nevertheless, no one actually shares in this forgiveness of sins except believers. Hence, according to the words of the Gospel, John 3:16: God so loved world that he gave his only begotten Son so that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. And the First Epistle of John 2:2: He is the propitiation for our sins, not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.101

For each of the Five Remonstrant Articles (though the Third and the Fourth are lumped together) the Contra-​ Remonstrants responded; the Remonstrants then followed up each response with a counterresponse. This back-​and-​forth dialogue occurred in two rounds. The Contra-​Remonstrants began their response to the Second Article by identifying two main parts. The first regarded the meriting (or impetrating) of reconciliation and remission of sins for all human beings. The second part claimed that only believers participate in this remission of sins. The latter part was agreed upon by both parties. Accordingly, the Contra-​ Remonstrants began their response: “The latter part is beyond all controversy and is freely conceded by us.”102 It was the former thesis that caused concern for the Contra-​Remonstrants. Repeatedly the Contra-​Remonstrants willingly confessed that the death of Christ was, in its own nature, sufficient to expiate the sins of all human beings.103 What they denied, and continued to deny throughout the Conference, however, was that Christ merited or impetrated actual reconciliation and remission of sins for all human beings such that God “restores them into a state of grace.”104 Not surprisingly, the Contra-​ Remonstrants saw such teaching as a revival of Huberism.105 More positively, the Contra-​Remonstrants argued that to die in the place of another most properly entails the fruition of the benefits for the died-​ for. Hence, if Christ properly died for every person, then all people would be remitted of their sins and reconciled with God.106 As for those places in Scripture (such as Jn. 3:16) that use universal language regarding the death of Christ, the words “all” and “world” should not be extended “in general to each and every human being (no one excepted), but to all believers.”107 In their counterresponse to the first response of the Contra-​Remonstrants, the Remonstrants distinguished three separate theses which they affirmed, all relating to the aforementioned (and controversial) first part of their Article: (1) that Christ did not die or acquire reconciliation only for those

The Lombardian Formula  63 who are to be saved (or the elect); (2) that Christ died for all human beings; (3) that each of these acts was done according to the council and decree of the Father.108 A fundamental doctrinal difference between the two parties was that the Remonstrants insisted that “the decree of the death and passion of Christ preceded, in [logical] order, [the decree of] election to salvation.”109 Hence, in their view, it was nonsensical to speak of Christ dying for the elect qua elect. Through the use of syllogisms and various biblical texts, they highlighted the necessity of Christ having died for all human beings, especially those to whom the gospel message is pronounced in confirmation of their second thesis. According to the Remonstrants, to command those for whom Christ did not die to believe in Christ would be to command them to believe a lie, namely, that Christ died for them.110 They also argued that if Christ did not die for certain sinners, those sinners would be just as hopeless as the fallen angels.111 In defense of their third thesis, the Remonstrants emphasized the connection between the decree of God and the death of Christ—​for those whom Christ died, it was in accordance with the will of the Father. The reason Christ is not deemed the mediator of the fallen angels is because Christ did not undergo death for them.112 They concluded their defense by appealing to the language of Heidelberg Catechism Q. 37, Article 17 of the Belgic Confession, and a few Lutheran confessions.113 The Contra-​Remonstrants responded to the first counterresponse of the Remonstrants by again emphasizing that the center of the controversy was over the first part of the Second Remonstrant Article, not the second part. In fact, they believed that the latter part, insofar as it taught that only believers benefit from Christ’s death, undermined the first part, which argued that Christ impetrated for all people reconciliation with God, unbelievers included. The Contra-​Remonstrants could not understand how reconciliation and forgiveness could be impetrated or aquired for those who never would actually participate in that reconciliation or forgiveness of sins.114 They also pointed out that there were some differing opinions among the Remonstrants themselves regarding whether the death of Christ brought with it a universal reconciliation.115 Moreover, the Contra-​Remonstrants deemed the three theses proposed by the Remonstrants to be unhelpful (hiding the true state of the controversy), though they nevertheless responded to each in order.116 To the first thesis (acquiring reconciliation for all), the Contra-​Remonstrants argued that if the acquisition of reconciliation for all concerned only the sufficiency of the merit of Christ, then they would

64  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism happily concede. Still, they plainly denied that it entailed the actual reconciliation of all. Against the Remonstrant argument from the order of election, the Contra-​Remonstrants reaffirmed their belief that foreseen faith in Christ is not the cause, quality, or condition God accounts for in electing some to salvation. Instead, faith in Christ is a fruit proceeding from election.117 As for the argument from the gospel offer, the Contra-​Remonstrants noted that the external gospel call does not assume the proposition that Christ died for all, whether or not one believes, but always adds the requisite condition of faith and repentance. More precisely, those who are called to salvation are the believing and repentant: “[P]‌roperly speaking, God does not call to salvation all those who are externally called: for he calls to salvation only believers and the repentant.”118 Indeed, according to the Contra-​Remonstrants, never in Scripture does God command that impenitent sinners (and who remain in that state of impenitancy) “absolutely believe that reconciliation and remission of sins has actually been aquired for them.”119 Regarding the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work (under the second Remonstrant thesis), the Contra-​Remonstrants made some noteworthy concessions. For example, in response to the Remonstrant argument that Christ must have died for the nonelect in a way that he did not die for the fallen angels, they admitted that “a mediator was ordained and given to human beings, not to the fallen angels.”120 Furthermore, although God has not given to the fallen angels any means by which they may be reconciled to God, this is not true for unbelievers: Unbelievers, although they have merited condemnation for themselves, yet there is still some way and reason by which they are able to avoid condemnation, namely if they believe. And neither to any human being has all hope of salvation been prematurely cut off in this life [quantisper in hac vita est]: Nor is it announced to anyone in particular, that Christ did not die for you.121

The Contra-​Remonstrants similarly acknowledged that any sinner, before he or she believes (antequam credat), ought to certainly know that Christ, by his own death, paid a sufficient price (lytron) which is able to take away the sins of all human beings, and which actually does take the sins away of all who repent and believe.122 Further, sinners are able to know, before they believe, that Christ died for them as far as the sufficiency of the merit is concerned, and as concerns its application if they believe in Christ.123 Even with these

The Lombardian Formula  65 concessions relating to the sufficiency of Christ’s death, however, the Contra-​ Remonstrants continued to deny that Christ died for any but believers: “[I]‌t was not the council of God that Christ die for each and every human being, but only for believers, whom only he decreed to save by means of the merit of his Son’s death, and for no others.”124 In their final response to the Contra-​Remonstrants, the Remonstrants claimed that their position was misrepresented by their opponents.125 The Remonstrants insisted that the death of Christ is logically ordained for sinners before taking into account either belief or unbelief. Accordingly, it is simply “absurd and inept” to speak of Christ having died for the faithful or unfaithful.126 Instead, Christ is like a medic who prepares a remedy for the sick without respect to whether all those who are sick will make use of the remedy.127 As far as the Contra-​Remonstrant charge laid at the feet of the Remonstrants—​namely, that the death of Christ restores all human beings to a state of grace—​the Remonstrants emphasized the distinction between the acquisition of remission of sins for all, which allows God to restore someone in the state of grace, and the actual enjoyment of remission itself: “To say that Christ acquired remission of sins for all and to say that all have been restored again to a state of grace” are two separate things.128 The latter “properly pertains to the application of Christ’s passion,” whereas the former acquisition of remission of sins is defined thus: “Christ satisfied the justice of God such that God, without injury to his own justice, has again opened the door of his own grace to sinful mankind: nevertheless no one comes to participate in this grace except by way of faith.”129 Turning the tables, the Remonstrants, whose perceived belief in the universal efficacy of Christ’s death called into question their own orthodoxy, doubted whether the Contra-​Remonstrants really held to the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all. According to the Remonstrants, their opponents might have claimed that the death of Christ is sufficient to take away the sins of the whole world, but they, in fact, denied its sufficiency when they said that the death of Christ from the council and decree of God has its own power to reconcile (efficaciam . . . ad reconciliationem) only among the elect and true believers.130 Reminiscent of Arminius’s own criticism of Perkins, the Remonstrants believed that when the Contra-​Remonstrants claimed that Christ died for all sufficiently they were playing with equivocations; what the Contra-​Remonstrants really meant was that Christ hypothetically (not mortuus est, but mortuus esset!) died for all, that is, if God had willed Christ to have died for all.131 The Remonstrants deemed such teaching as nothing

66  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism other than the view held by Piscator and Beza, who taught (in the words of the Remonstrants) “[t]‌hat Christ, if you consider the council of God, neither died sufficiently, effectually, nor in any other way, for the reprobate.”132 According to the Remonstrants, it was illogical to affirm, as the Contra-​ Remonstrants did, that Christ died for all with respect to its sufficient power and merit to cover all sins, while simultaneously saying that it was not the will of the Father for Christ to die generally for all.133 Moreover, the Remonstrants continued to wonder why the Contra-​Remonstrants could not say that Christ died for the devils, seeing that on the Contra-​Remonstrant view, Christ dying for all meant only that Christ’s passion was sufficient in itself to take away all sins, not that he willed to die for the devils.134 Put another way, if what makes the death of Christ sufficient for all human beings is simply the power or virtue Christ’s death has to remit sins, then his death would not be insufficient to forgive the sins of the devils. Yet the Contra-​ Remonstrants maintained that it was insufficient for the devils: Christ did not die sufficiently for the sins of the devils. How, then, is the death of Christ sufficient for the reprobate but insufficient for the devils? At the end of the Hague Conference of 1611, each party was permitted to draw up its own status controversiae regarding each of the Five Remonstrant Articles. On the Second Article, the Contra-​Remonstrants continued to think that the real state of the question revolved around how the Remonstrants could simultaneously hold that Christ had impetrated remission of sins and reconciliation with all, while affirming that only believers really participate in that reconciliation. The former seemed to logically preclude the latter, according to the Contra-​Remonstrants.135 They saw no medium between the “sufficiency of the price” and “the real application” of Christ’s death, even though the Remonstrants insisted that what Christ impetrated on behalf of the nonelect went beyond the inherent value of Christ’s death.136 The Contra-​ Remonstrants thus summarized the state of the controversy: “Whether the passion and death of Jesus Christ has its own power [vim] from the council and decree of God to bring about reconciliation with God among all the elect and true believers, or whether, in addition to this, also among each and every human being, without exception, even among those who live, remain, die, and perish in unbelief and impenitence.”137 In their own statement of the controversy, the Remonstrants noted how their own view on the extent of Christ’s death flowed from their belief that Christ is the foundation of the decree of election and, hence, the meritorious cause of salvation for all sinners.138 The Remonstrants again denied the

The Lombardian Formula  67 notion that all human beings are actually restored in a state of grace by the work of Christ.139 If the Contra-​Remonstrants wondered why it was that the Remonstrants taught that Christ merited reconciliation even for those who never participated in such a reconciliation, the Remonstrants in turn asked why their adversaries affirmed that Christ sufficiently died for those who, nevertheless, were never going to be reconciled to God!140 The Remonstrants maintained that Christ died for those who would never be reconciled because the Scriptures teach it. Such teaching exhibits God’s love for all human beings and provides the ground upon which the gospel can be offered universally to all human beings.141 It is worth observing how the debate at The Hague in 1611 covered territory similar to that found in the earlier debates both between Arminius and his detractors, as well as between the Lutheran and Reformed of the previous century. The two parties at The Hague continued to insist that their opponents denied one part of the Lombardian formula. The Contra-​ Remonstrants claimed that logically (if not actually) the Remonstrants denied that Christ died effectually for the elect alone. The Remonstrants, for their part, contended that the Contra-​Remonstrants denied that Christ actually died for all human beings sufficiently. They both agreed that the death of Christ has, in itself, the power to forgive all sins of all human beings, and they both agreed that it is only those who believe and repent who ultimately are saved by the work of Christ. Yet questions relating to what the death of Christ acquired for the nonelect remained: What did Christ’s satisfaction actually do for the nonelect? Was a satisfaction even made for the sins of the nonelect? And how does a sufficient satisfaction for the sins of the nonelect relate to God’s will? Finally, how is one to understand some of the writings of the Remonstrants, most notably Arminius, who seemed to extend the reconciliation obtained by Christ to the heathen children dying in infancy? These questions would continue to fester during and beyond the Synod of Dordt. The arguments offered at the Hague Conference foreshadowed the various discussions regarding the death of Christ that took place at the Synod of Dordt. Moreover, Davenant’s treatise on the topic made both explicit and implicit use of both Remonstrant and Contra-​Remonstrant arguments. Davenant believed that the Contra-​Remonstrant position on the sufficiency of Christ’s death was inadequate, though he deemed the Remonstrant denial that Christ impetrated all the to-​be-​applied saving benefits of Christ for the elect alone equally deficient, even anti-​Augustinian.

68  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism The Synod of Dordt was the second major attempt in the Netherlands to deal definitively with the Remonstrant Controversy. Yet, unlike the Hague Conference of 1611, this Synod would make the controversy an international debate, bringing together the various European Reformed churches and eventually resulting in a consensus on the point raised by the Second Remonstrant Article. It is this Synod, and especially the moderating role the British delegates played at the Synod, that c­ hapter 4 will consider.

3.3  Conclusion Given our survey of the various emerging views on the extent of the atonement in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century, Rouwendal’s thesis can be better analyzed. Rouwendal (following Voetius) was correct to recognize that prior to Beza, there was a general consensus with regard to the Lombardian formula. Yet he failed to identify whether those earlier Reformed versions of the Lombardian formula assumed an ordained sufficiency, which would provide an avenue of continuity with later expositions of hypothetical universalism, or whether such early Reformers simply affirmed the infinite value of Christ’s death without any ordination to send Christ on behalf of all human beings. While it is true that hypothetical universalism as a distinct approach to the question of for whom Christ died emerged only in the polemics with the Remonstrants and Lutherans, Rouwendal does not ask whether the later hypothetical universalists, like Davenant and Ussher (among others), were simply continuing the trajectory of the earlier Reformed theologians who affirmed the Lombardian formula. After all, the formula’s strongest advocates among the Reformed in the seventeenth century were not the Contra-​Remonstrants, many of whom (including Voetius) simply denied that the death of Christ was actually sufficient for all, but the hypothetical universalists, who emphasized that the Lombardian formula does in fact claim that Christ died for all, albeit only sufficiently. Davenant, at least, did not believe that what he was saying was substantially different from those earlier Reformed, medieval, and patristic theologians who confessed that Christ died sufficiently for all, but efficaciously for the elect. The Lombardian formula in its scholastic form remained relatively noncontroversial until the latter part of the sixteenth century. This assumed theological consensus was challenged as the Reformed movement continued

The Lombardian Formula  69 to confessionalize and acquire a distinct theological approach over and against Lutheranism. The debate between Andreae and Beza at the Colloquy of Montbéliard was especially important in the history of theories relating to the extent of Christ’s satisfaction. Beza explicitly challenged the received distinction, at least as it was understood by the Lutherans, and argued that Christ intended to make satisfaction for the elect alone. Hence, the Lutherans believed that the Reformed undermined the universal sufficiency of Christ’s death. This became more plausible with the writings of the prolific Reformed commentator Piscator and his explicit denial that Christ died sufficiently for all sinners. On the other hand, Andreae’s own discussion of the efficacy of Christ’s death appeared to imply that Christ’s death brought with it an actual universal reconciliation of the whole world, seemingly in contradiction with the latter part of the Lombardian formula. This reading of the Lutherans became even more plausible as the Lutheran theologian Huber began to defend Andreae and attack Reformed theology. Huber explicitly argued that the death of Christ actually reconciled all human beings to God, though this reconciliation could be lost via unbelief. When the Remonstrants, such as Arminius, at the turn of the century began to argue for a universal impetration of sins and reconciliation with God, such language connoted Huberism. Some of the strongest objections to this Lutheran/​Remonstrant position were made by those who denied that Christ died for all in any sense. These denials rejected the wording of the Lombardian formula. The various Reformed attacks on the Lombardian formula led to the formula’s defense not only by the Remonstrants who insisted that Christ died sufficiently for all, but also by the English hypothetical universalists prominent during the Synod of Dordt. This is the subject of the next chapter of our study.

4 John Davenant and the Synod of Dordt 4.1  Introduction John Davenant’s role as an English delegate at the Synod of Dordt is well known.1 Few, however, have looked at how James Ussher’s two letters on the extent of Christ’s death circulating on the eve of the Synod shed light on the British delegation’s own thinking regarding the topic, and how they connect with the preceding Remonstrant debates.2 Moreover, while various studies have acknowledged the influence of the British on the final draft of the Canons on the Second Remonstrant Article, none has focused significant attention on the various draft manuscripts related to the formation of that Second Main Point of Doctrine. Indeed, had Godfrey’s dissertation accessed these manuscripts, they would have provided significant support to his argument that the Canons of Dordt represent a compromise position with regard to the extent of Christ’s satisfaction. However, the conclusion that the Canons of Dordt represent a compromise among the hypothetical universalist and the Contra-​Remonstrant positions has not trickled down to more popular literature. For example, one recent book on the Canons of Dordt claimed that compromise was reached when the Canons affirmed “the Reformed view of particular atonement” and rejected “the Arminian view of universal atonement.”3 According to this author, “Dort in no way affirms a general or universal atonement but denies it,” and Dordt maintains that “Christ actually made satisfaction only for the elect.”4 If true, then the Synod of Dordt excludes Davenant’s form of hypothetical universalism. Much of the confusion found in recent literature stems from a lack of careful definitions. For example, in the recent 703-​page defense of definite atonement, From Heaven He Came and Sought Her, the editors define the doctrine of definite atonement this way: The doctrine of definite atonement states that, in the death of Jesus Christ, the triune God intended to achieve the redemption of every person given to

John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism. Michael J. Lynch, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197555149.003.0004

John Davenant and the Synod of Dordt  71 the Son by the Father in eternity past, and to apply the accomplishments of his sacrifice to each of them by the Spirit. The death of Christ was intended to win the salvation of God’s people alone.5

As we shall see, there is actually nothing in that definition that would exclude Davenant’s version of hypothetical universalism. Yet in the same essay, the editors consistently presume that hypothetical universalism, “the awkward cousin in the [Reformed] family,” is contrary to the doctrine of definite atonement.6 Adding to the ambiguity is the fine essay in the same volume by Lee Gatiss, who surveys the debate at the Synod of Dordt among the Reformed on the extent of Christ’s death.7 In this essay, Gatiss clearly believes that the doctrine of definite atonement is defined per its confessional exposition at Dordt.8 Gatiss is equally clear that the Canons “were framed to enable subscription by Davenant and [Samuel] Ward,” making them “five-​point” Calvinists!9 Hence, according to Gatiss’s essay, Davenant holds to a form of definite atonement because he agrees with the Canons of Dordt.10 Even the editors of the volume call the Synod of Dordt “the classic statement of definite atonement.”11 Given that almost all scholars agree that Davenant and Ward’s view on the extent of Christ’s death is within the boundaries of the Canons of Dordt, why, in that book, is Davenant’s hypothetical universalism so often pitted against the doctrine of definite atonement? One suggestion is that oftentimes the terms “definite” and “limited atonement” import notions—​such as a limited satisfaction and a denial of universal redemption—​foreign to what Dordt actually affirms and denies. Accordingly, this chapter will further buttress the thesis that the Canons were written to allow for English hypothetical universalism. By commenting on the various drafts of the Canons, the British exerted their influence on what finally ended up in the Canons. The British were successful in making sure that their own hypothetical universalism was not excluded; they were even able to insert a couple of their own theses into the Canons. Through an examination of these largely untouched manuscripts, an important and complex picture emerges of Davenant’s influence on the Canons as well as his own thoughts on the extent of the atonement. One simply cannot fully appreciate the impetus for and the theology behind Davenant’s De Morte Christi without taking into account the blossoming of English hypothetical universalism on the eve of the Synod, as well as the theology of the British suffrage, an important document produced at the Synod and subsequently published in England.12

72  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism This chapter will also show that even before the Synod of Dordt, a burgeoning movement of English hypothetical universalism arose as a specific reaction to the Remonstrants on the one side and the Contra-​ Remonstrants on the other. Ussher’s two letters give strong evidence that the English hypothetical universalists saw themselves as a continuation of the Augustinian tradition, in contrast to the two extremes of Arminianism and that of the Contra-​Remonstrants. When Ward and Davenant were chosen by King James to attend the Synod of Dordt as delegates of the Church of England, English hypothetical universalism was given an opportunity to make its confessional mark on the Reformed world. Although they were not able to convince the other European delegations to agree with them on every point, they were able to shape the Second Main Doctrine of the Canons relating to the extent of the Christ’s death. The multiple theses on the sufficiency of Christ’s death and the gospel offer are a direct result of the British delegation at Dordt, and there is nothing in the whole of that Second Main Doctrine of the Canons that undermined the position of English hypothetical universalism.

4.2  English Hypothetical Universalism and the Precursors to the Synod of Dordt As seen in ­chapters 2 and 3, the Synod of Dordt did not convene in a theological vacuum. Nor, for that matter, did it arise out of a political vacuum. In the year following William of Orange’s (William I) death, the English entered into a formal alliance with the Dutch United Provinces. After the Treaty of Nonsuch in 1585, England desired and obtained a significant political influence upon the Netherlands, especially while the Spanish, enemies of England, were waging war against the United Provinces. As the United Provinces at the turn of the seventeenth century began to cast a substantial shadow on the larger European political scene, so England became even more interested in the Low Countries’ political affairs, and thus also the religious matters that were to divide the Dutch. King James I especially showed keen interest in the problems facing the Dutch Republic, seeking to mediate between two Dutch factions—​the Remonstrants and the Contra-​Remonstrants—​which developed in the first part of the seventeenth century along political and theological lines. Matching James’s desire to intervene in the affairs of the Dutch Republic, these two Dutch

John Davenant and the Synod of Dordt  73 political and theological factions appeared all too ready to garner support from the English crown. Thus, as Anthony Milton notes, any attempt at identifying the Synod as merely “the detached theological talking-​shop” fails to consider these strong political undercurrents.13 It is important to understand this political history if only to underscore that the English were not just seen as another foreign delegation; rather they were the most important foreign delegation attending the Synod, both politically and theologically.14 Without their political and theological support of the Canons of Dordt, the unity and stability of the Dutch Republic would be in danger.15 In 1616, Dudley Carleton, an Englishman with strong Contra-​ Remonstrant leanings, was appointed as an ambassador to the Dutch Republic, establishing even closer ties between the Republic and both Archbishop of Canterbury George Abbot (a Contra-​Remonstrant) and King James. The social tension that continued to be evident among the two Dutch factions convinced James that a national theological synod would be the best option for the future of the United Provinces.16 Desiring to “appease the Controversies raised in those [United] Provinces in matters of religion,” he suggested to Ambassador Carleton that the national synod also include the opinion of foreign delegates.17 Once the Anti-​Remonstrant political leader Maurice of Naussau, Prince of Orange, arrested the opposing party leader, Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, a national synod was all but certain. By November 1618, four delegates had made their way to the Dutch town of Dordrecht for a national synod: George Carleton, bishop of Llandaff; Joseph Hall, dean of Worcester; John Davenant, master of Queen’s College, Cambridge; and Samuel Ward, master of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge. (The Scot Walter Balcanquhall, fellow of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, joined the other British delegates shortly after the Synod began.) Hall returned to England due to illness and was replaced by Thomas Goad (chaplain of Archbishop Abbot) in January 1619. James’s instructions to the British delegates were clear and illustrative of the emphasis on catholicity in the English church: concerning “all points to bee debated and disputed” they were to “joyntly and uniformly agree,” and furthermore, all things were to be done in accordance with the “Scriptures and the doctrine of the Church of England.”18 The British delegates put these instructions given them by the Defensor Fidei to the test almost immediately upon their arrival in Dordrecht. In fact, even before their arrival, it appears that the delegates foresaw areas of disagreement among themselves, especially on the extent of Christ’s work.19

74  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism

4.2.1  James Ussher and the Emergence of English Hypothetical Universalism Just months before the Synod convened, Ussher wrote a letter to Ezekiel Culverwell explaining his “middle way” of redemption.20 If Ussher’s former chaplain Nicholas Bernard is to be believed, one of the British delegates at Dordt brought the letter to the Synod: “a copy of which being taken, was (unknown to him) carried thither by a Member of it [viz., the Synod of Dordt].”21 Regardless, the letter was well known before the delegates set off for the Synod, and since Ward was clearly in regular correspondence with Ussher, it is reasonable to suspect that Ward would have known about such a letter; in turn, it is likely that the letter would have been known to Davenant, given Ward and Davenant’s close friendship as well as their immediate and mutual task.22 Anecdotally, Richard Baxter relates how Bishop Ussher “gloried that he was the Man that brought Bishop Davenant and Dr [John] Preston to it [i.e., the doctrine of universal redemption],” which, if true, must have occurred sometime before the Synod of Dordt.23 In this letter, Ussher argues for a tertium quid between “two extremities.”24 At one extreme was the Remonstrant view regarding the extent of Christ’s atoning work. Consistent with earlier Contra-​Remonstrant criticisms of the Remonstrants, this position, according to Ussher, “extends the benefit of Christ’s satisfaction too far” by speaking as if Christ was actually reconciled to all human beings by his death.25 In other words, Ussher believed that the Remonstrants extended the saving efficacy of Christ’s death to the nonelect. On the other extreme was the Contra-​Remonstrant position, which claimed that “none had any kinde of interest therein [i.e., in Christ’s satisfaction], but such as were elected before the foundation of the world.”26 Foreshadowing Davenant’s own method of dealing with these two extremes, Ussher made some notable theological distinctions in order to explain and clarify his own via media.27 First, Ussher distinguished between the satisfaction of Christ absolutely considered and the application of the satisfaction. This distinction was critical in undermining key arguments made by both Remonstrants and Contra-​Remonstrants while upholding his via media. The Remonstrants, as we saw in the previous chapter with Arminius and Borreus, seemed at times to argue that the death of Christ placed all human beings in a state of reconciliation such that only unbelief could break such a bond. Thus, Ussher concluded from his distinction that, on account of

John Davenant and the Synod of Dordt  75 Christ’s satisfaction absolutely considered, “against the first extremity . . . God is made placable unto our nature . . . but not actually appeased with any.”28 Against the Contra-​Remonstrants, Ussher argued that “all men may be truley said to have interest in the merits of Christ . . . though all donot [sic] enjoy the benefit thereof.”29 Ussher realized that the nature of Christ’s satisfaction lying behind both extremes is that its saving benefits ipso facto redound to those for whom satisfaction was made. In contrast, Ussher presented a doctrine of satisfaction that allows God to forgive sin—​that is, all the sins of human beings are forgivable because of Christ’s death—​but does not necessitate that he forgives any, unless, of course, the conditions of faith and repentance are met. This understanding of satisfaction is critical in distinguishing between hypothetical universalism and the Contra-​Remonstrant position. For the Contra-​ Remonstrants, all the sins for which Christ made satisfaction must ipso facto be remitted.30 Well before the Remonstrant controversy, Beza argued against the Lutherans at the Colloquy of Montbéliard that “satisfaction necessarily abolishes all guilt.”31 Such was implied in the connection between Christ’s priestly office and his intercession. As the Contra-​Remonstrant argument went, if Christ intercedes for the elect alone, then his priestly work, including the satisfaction of divine justice for sin, must be limited to the elect.32 In short, the Contra-​Remonstrants and the burgeoning hypothetical universalist position were working with two different notions of satisfaction and its application. Ussher’s notion of a satisfaction that could fail to be applied, however, was not without precedent. As noted in the previous chapter, Ursinus specifically argued that a universal satisfaction did not necessitate a universal remission of sins. In his lectures on the Heidelberg Catechism, Ursinus laid out these objections to his own claim that Christ made a satisfaction for the sins of all human beings: [Objection:] All those for whose offences Christ made a sufficient satisfaction ought to be received into God’s favor; But Christ has made a sufficient satisfaction for the sins of all human beings. Therefore, all men are to be received into God’s favor; or if this be not done, God shall be unjust to human beings, or somewhat subtracted from Christ’s merit.33 [Objection:] If Christ satisfied for all, then all must be saved. But all are not saved. Therefore, he satisfied not perfectly for all.34

76  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism In each case, Ursinus responded to the objection by noting that the efficacy of the satisfaction is contingent on the fulfilling of the condition (viz., faith). Therefore, a universal satisfaction does not ipso facto demand that all human beings be forgiven of their sins. Ussher also distinguished between Christ’s priestly work of satisfaction and his priestly work of intercession. Unlike the Contra-​Remonstrants, Ussher argued that the former, as it “give[s]‌contentment to Gods justice . . . contains the preparation of the remedy necessary for mans salvation,” and hence is universal in scope.35 The latter, Christ’s work of intercession, “doth sollicit Gods mercie . . . brings with it an application of the same,” and is particular.36 These two distinctions—​ that is, the distinction between Christ’s mediatorial work in redemption and intercession and the distinction between satisfaction and application—​ clearly hit on serious theological differences between the Contra-​Remonstrants and Ussher’s via media. This is demonstrated by Ussher’s second letter, written in response to the strong pushback he received from his fellow Reformed cohorts. He began the letter by noting that at least two Reformed critics deemed his distinctions Roman Catholic: “The papist (saith one) doth thus distinguish, A Mediator of Redemption and Intercession, And Bellarmine (saith another) divides the satisfaction and application of Christ.”37 Ussher insisted that he attributed the “entire work of the Mediation unto Christ alone,” in contrast to the Roman Catholics, and further maintained that his belief did not amount to the Remonstrant position, as some of his other detractors surmised.38 One of the most overlooked differences between Ussher’s universal redemption and the Remonstrant position concerns the nature and extent of impetration.39 Historical-​theological discussions of the extent of Christ’s death often contrast the hypothetical universalist position with the limited atonement position by explaining that the latter holds that impetration and application are coextensive (and hence limited), whereas hypothetical universalism affirms a universal impetration and a limited application. The eminent nineteenth-​century Scottish Presbyterian William Cunningham represents hypothetical universalism as affirming just this position: The fundamental position of all who had advocated the doctrine of atonement against the Socinians, but had also maintained that it was universal or unlimited, was—​that Christ, by His sufferings and death, purchased pardon and reconciliation for all men, without distinction or exception; but that these blessings are applied or communicated to, and, of course, are

John Davenant and the Synod of Dordt  77 actually enjoyed by, those only who came, from whatever cause, to repent and believe.40

The problem, as Cunningham saw it, was that hypothetical universalism taught that the blessings of remission of sins and reconciliation with God “are impetrated for many to whom they are never applied.”41 John Murray, longtime professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, similarly argued that “impetration and application are coextensive,” thus “[t]‌his excludes any form of universal atonement.”42 Not only did Cunningham think that all those Reformed theologians in favor of universal redemption taught a universal impetration, but he also lumped together the Remonstrant and hypothetical universalism positions: “There is no very material difference between the state of the question with respect to the extent of the atonement . . . according as its universality is maintained by Arminians, or by those who hold Calvinistic doctrines upon other points.”43 That the Remonstrants and hypothetical universalists were agreed on the extent of impetration has continued to be perpetuated in literature.44 Cunningham’s and Murray’s readings, however, cannot be applied to English hypothetical universalism. One of the problems behind these misunderstandings of English hypothetical universalism is a failure to distinguish the right status quaestionis. As we saw in the previous chapter, the Contra-​Remonstrants understood the state of the question as “[w]‌hether the passion and death of Jesus Christ has its own power from the council and decree of God to bring about reconciliation with God” for all men or the elect alone.45 While there may have been some ambiguity in the wording, it is not difficult to see from the way the Contra-​Remonstrants framed the controversy against the Remonstrant language of universal impetration of reconciliation with God, that the nature and extent of impetration was the central issue dividing the two parties. However, the English hypothetical universalists, such as Ussher, expressly denied universal impetration. In fact, Ussher quotes from the Remonstrants at the Hague Conference in 1611: “For that Christ hath so died for all men (as [the Remonstrants] lay down in the conference of Hague) ut reconciliationem cum Deo, et peccatorum remissionem singulis impetraverit, I hold to be untrue, being well assured, that our Saviour hath obtained at the hands of his father Reconciliation, and Forgiveness of sins, not for the Reprobate, but Elect onely.”46 Regarding the extent of Christ’s impetration, Ussher explicitly sided with the Contra-​Remonstrant William Ames over and against Nicholas

78  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism Grevinchovius. Ames argued for the coextensiveness of redemption impetrated and the application of redemption: “redemption was not able to be impetrated for any whom it was not also applied.”47 For Ussher, impetration, or the acquisition of forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God, was grounded upon Christ’s intercession (cf. John 17) and limited to the elect. Satisfaction and impetration, for Ussher, are clearly not synonyms. Ussher’s second letter highlights another persistent misunderstanding of hypothetical universalism. It is sometimes said that the difference between hypothetical universalism and Arminianism “was not on the point of the extent of the atonement, but rather its efficacy and application.”48 Robert Letham perpetuates this misunderstanding of hypothetical universalism by claiming that according to the hypothetical universalists, “this suffering [of Christ] does not intrinsically achieve what it was intended to do since it is dependent upon a response on the part of human beings which, in many cases, fails to materialize.”49 Behind both of these claims is the assumption that for hypothetical universalists, Christ accomplished redemption equally for all human beings, but that redemption will be applied only to the elect. Yet this is not accurate, as Ussher and later hypothetical universalists make clear. For the hypothetical universalist, Christ died for the elect in a way that he did not die for the nonelect—​including impetrating reconciliation with God and remission of sins for the elect alone. Ussher cited Ambrose approvingly: “Etsi Christus pro omnibus mortuus est, tamen specialiter pro nobis passus est, quia pro Ecclesia passus est. [Although Christ died for all, nevertheless he especially suffered for us, because he suffered for his Church].”50 For the hypothetical universalists, there is a sense in which Christ might be “truly said not to have died for all.”51 Employing the oft-​used munus triplex of Christ as prophet, priest, and king, Ussher distinguished the priesthood of Christ between Christ’s universal satisfaction and his particular intercession, and argued that as king and prophet, Christ acquired regeneration and effectual calling for the elect alone. Ussher foresaw various objections against his assertion that Christ’s satisfaction does not remit sins but makes sins pardonable: “But if this Justice (you will say) be satisfied, how comes it to pass that God exacts payment again from any?”52 Behind this supposed question, as noted earlier, is the classic double-​payment argument, which claimed that God must pardon those sins for which Christ made satisfaction.53 Ussher responded that the application of Christ’s satisfaction is not an effect of the satisfaction of divine justice that “prepares the way for Gods mercy,” but on account of Christ’s intercession

John Davenant and the Synod of Dordt  79 that produces “an actual discharge from Gods anger,” the actual justification of the elect.54 Ursinus also preempted this double-​payment objection.55 Echoing Ursinus’s response to his interlocutor, Ussher appealed to the fact that the application of Christ’s satisfaction is conditional, i.e., dependent on faith: “Saint Paul teacheth us that we be not only justifiable, but justified by his bloud, (Rom. 5.9.) yet not simply as offered on the Crosse, but through faith in his bloud, (Rom. 3.25.) that is, through his bloud applied by faith.”56 Ussher’s two letters are important because they provide an immediate background to Davenant’s thinking on the topic and the Synod of Dordt more generally. Ussher’s letters also provide one of the first significant treatments of the extent of Christ’s satisfaction from a distinctly hypothetical universalist position over and against both the Remonstrant and the Contra-​Remonstrant position.57 Ussher pinpointed the area of disagreement among the various Reformed that were just beginning to fester—​namely, what it means for Christ’s death to be sufficient for all human beings. Ussher did not, as Jonathan Moore has suggested, “take the concept of the sufficiency of the atonement away from Christological concerns (the blood of the Son of God) and [move] it into the area of the divine decree.”58 In fact, the whole debate had arguably moved the notion of sufficiency within the realm of God’s decree when Beza first publicly denied that Christ died for all. Instead, Ussher simply continued the trajectory of debate begun by Beza, Piscator, Arminius, and others. By adding an ordination for all human beings to the “worth of Christ’s satisfaction,” which is “so great,” Ussher affirmed an element that the Contra-​Remonstrants denied rather than simply shifting emphases. From these two letters emerged a second state of the question relating to the extent of Christ’s death that would divide the Reformed into two distinct camps. The Dutch theologian Gisbertus Voetius put the question in these terms: “Whether Christ died for each and every human being; that is, did he merit anything as the surety for each and every human being by his satisfaction and obedience?”59 Simply stated, did Christ die for the nonelect in any sense? Did God intend to send Christ as a mediator for the sins of all human beings?

4.2.2  Bishop Overall’s Via Media Foreseeing potential conflict at Dordt, and attempting to abide by King James’s instructions regarding catholicity, it seems that Davenant brought with him to Dordt a copy of Bishop John Overall’s The Judgement of the

80  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism Church of England concerning Divine Predestination; apparently, Davenant’s hypothetical universalism was also shaped by Overall’s via media.60 In this short work, Overall laid out the Church of England’s position on each of the disputed points among the Remonstrants and Contra-​Remonstrants. Regarding the death of Christ, Overall determined that the position of the Church of England was plainly (plana) that Christ died for all human beings.61 He appealed to various Church of England documents, including the Thirty-​Nine Articles. He even cited John Calvin on Heb. 9:28, who otherwise held to the harsher (rigidiorem) opinion concerning predestination, as teaching that Christ died for all human beings.62 Overall concluded that the Lombardian formula was accurate so long as it was not interpreted as simply affirming a mere hypothetical sufficiency, i.e., “it would have been sufficient for all, if God and Christ intended it thus.”63 Davenant would also defend the Lombardian formula from those who were either reinterpreting what it claimed about the sufficiency of Christ’s death or denying it. Although Overall’s treatment of the English Church’s position was brief, it represented the opinion of other bishops in England and was well known among the British delegates.64 It is hard to disagree with John Platt’s summary: “Overall’s clear and thorough statement of the conformability of the Church of England’s official theological position with a generous doctrine of the extent of the atonement provided Davenant with the blueprint for his own successful championing of this line of argument.”65 In the years leading up to the Synod, certain English theologians (such as Overall and Lancelot Andrewes) were known to sympathize with the Remonstrants, which was a persistent concern among those who found Arminianism dangerous and antithetical to English Reformed theology.66 It is worth mentioning that while Overall may have had some theological (and political) sympathies with the Remonstrants, Davenant claimed on more than one occasion that Overall, who did subscribe to the Lambeth Articles of 1595, held to the Reformed view on predestination in contrast with the Remonstrant position.67

4.3  The British Delegation and the Second Main Point of Doctrine Even before the Synod of Dordt, the British delegates began to focus their attention on some of the key issues related to the Second Remonstrant Article.

John Davenant and the Synod of Dordt  81 For example, Ward, one of the translators of the King James Bible and a close friend of Davenant’s, wrote to Bishop Arthur Lake two days after arriving in London to receive instructions as a delegate to Dordt, asking him whether Christ made intercession for the reprobate and whether there was some will of good pleasure (voluntas beneplaciti) in God for the salvation of all human beings that is not fulfilled.68 In another letter to Lake four days later, Ward offered his own take on the order of God’s decrees (ordo decretorum Dei), asking Lake for his opinion.69 In response to Ward’s two letters, Lake briefly addressed the questions and gave his judgment on Ward’s ordering of God’s decree.70 Lake denied an intercession for the nonelect on account of his reading of Jn. 17:9 and argued that God’s voluntas beneplaciti is always fulfilled, whether permissively or effectively. These questions foreshadowed the discussions that would ensue at the Synod. Before the drafting of the Canons of Dordt, each delegation, both foreign and Dutch, drew up Judicia or suffrages on the Five Remonstrant Articles. The drawing up of the British delegation’s suffrage revealed disagreements among the various delegates, especially revolving around the Second Remonstrant Article. John Hales, the chaplain of the English ambassador Sir Dudley Carleton, reported that the British delegates met privately (possibly for session 74) to discuss the Second Article.71 In a letter dated only four days after session 74, the Scottish delegate Walter Balcanquhall wrote to Carleton, “Concerning this second Article I beseech your L. give me leave to express my grief, as there is difference touching it in the Synod, so there is much difference about it in our own Colledge.”72 Balcanquhall claimed that the source of division among the British delegates centered on whether one should understand those places in the Bible that said Christ died for all and Article 31 of the Thirty-​Nine Articles as “understood of all particular men,” as Davenant and Ward taught (following the foreign Bremen divine Matthias Martinius), or “of all sorts of men,” as the other delegates interpreted such places.73 At the same time, Bishop Carleton, like Balcanquhall, wrote to Sir Dudley claiming that Davenant and Ward taught that “the Redemption of Christ, and the Grace thereof was general to all without exception.”74 News of the internal theological differences made its way to Archibishop George Abbot. Around the same time, Ward privately disputed with the president of the Synod, Johannes Bogerman, about the Second Article.75

82  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism

4.3.1  The British Suffrage While Bishop Carleton noted that the delegation could not agree on every disputed point regarding the death of Christ, they eventually came to a consensus. The fruit of this consensus was their suffrage, which, like many of the suffrages of the foreign and Dutch delegations, and similar to the Canons themselves, was made up of two parts: (1) theses focused on each of the points dealt with in the Remonstrant Articles and (2) a rejection of errors.76 The portion of the suffrage relating to the Second Remonstrant Article on the extent of Christ’s death contained six positive theses and three rejected errors. Each thesis and rejection contained a following gloss or explanation. The first two theses explained how the death of Christ was related to the elect alone: God intended the death of Christ to infallibly redeem the elect alone (Thesis 1), and it is on account of Christ’s work that all the conditions of the evangelical covenant are infallibly gifted to the elect (Thesis 2). Although these theses were delivered privately, they were not controversial among the other Reformed delegations and did not warrant any resistance. A document (perhaps written for King James himself)77 that was first published with the title “Dr John Davenant on the atonement,” probably authored by Davenant himself or the British delegation as a whole,78 stated, “[T]‌hese two ensuing propositions, which are the two first which we have exhibited . . . had the consent of the Foreign Divines.”79 Theses 3 and 4 dealt with the relationship between the death of Christ and all human beings; although we are told that they “were in like manner approved by the Exteri [i.e., the foreign divines],” they were more controversial.80 The third thesis claimed that God gave his Son as the “price of redemption for the sins of the whole world.”81 In their explanation of this thesis, echoing Prosper of Aquitaine, the British delegates wrote that the “price was paid for all . . . yet is not beneficial to all.”82 Then came what is perhaps the most succinct description of English hypothetical universalism in the suffrage: Christ therefore so died for all that each and everyone by the means of faith can obtain remission of sins and eternal life by virtue of that ransom paid. But Christ so died for the elect that, by the merit of his death in a special manner destinated to them according to the eternal good pleasure of God, they would infallibly obtain both faith and eternal life.83

John Davenant and the Synod of Dordt  83 Davenant, in “Davenant on the atonement,” justifies the language of this thesis on the basis of Article 31 of the Thirty-​Nine Articles and the liturgy of the Church of England.84 The fourth thesis grounded the gospel promise (viz., that all believers would attain remission of sins) upon the merit of Christ. In other words, the universal promise is grounded upon the work of Christ. Davenant explained the fourth thesis as such: “This oblation once made, did found, confirm, and ratifie the Evangelical Covenant, which may and ought to be preached seriously to all mankind without exception.”85 The emphasis on this thesis is clearly that Christ dying for all sufficiently is the proper grounds for the indiscriminate gospel offer. Without the former, the latter would not be a true promise. The fifth thesis is easy to misunderstand and/​or overlook, but it is important not only for the British response to Arminianism but also for Davenant’s own theology. According to this thesis, the visible church is the sphere in which there is an administration of grace “sufficient to convince all impenitents and unbelievers” of their lawful damnation on account of “their own voluntary fault.”86 This administration of grace is deemed a “supernatural grace” even though it does not lead to eternal life. It should be remembered that for Davenant any benefit that comes to mankind on account of Christ’s person and work is properly called a “grace of Christ.”87 In his explanation of this thesis, Davenant appealed to Hebrews c­ hapters 6 and 10: “There are sundry initial preparations tending to Conversion, merited by Christ, and dispensed in the preaching of the Gospel,” which are applied by the Holy Spirit even though many “never attain to true regeneration or justification.”88 These preparations include “illumination, acquaintance with the doctrines of faith, a dogmatic faith [i.e., belief that such doctrines are true], a sense of sin, a fear of punishment, knowledge concerning the way of deliverance, an expectation of pardon, etc.”89 In short, this thesis, as Davenant admitted, extends the (nonsaving) application of the merit of Christ to the nonelect, in contradistinction to the views of the Contra-​Remonstrants and other delegations at Dordt. That these three latter theses were controversial and thus needed justification is evident by the fact that Davenant offered more than ten reasons for these theses. In contrast, as Milton notes, the sixth thesis was not controversial.90 This thesis claims that God is not bound to bring the gospel to any person nor give saving grace to any. Instead, “why he affords it to some while passing over others depends on his mercy and absolute freedom.”91

84  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism As noted, the British also rejected three separate theses thought to be held by the Remonstrants. First, they rejected the Arminian denial of any special intention of saving any particular person. Put somewhat differently, the British denied the notion that Christ died only for all conditionally, leaving the certainty of whether anyone would be saved solely on human free choice. This rejection had in mind those Remonstrants such as Grevinchovius, who argued: That God willed or did not will the application of the death of Christ to all individually, not absolutely but conditionally; He willed it to all if they had faith; he did not will it if they disbelieved . . . it was possible that Christ impetrate redemption for all, and nevertheless it might not be applied to any on account of the unbelief of all intervening.92

Davenant would dedicate his final chapter in De Morte Christi to argue against this position. The second position rejected, concomitant with the first,93 that the death of Christ obtained only the right and power for God to save mankind only conditionally. Again, this was a direct attack on those such as Grevinchovius who taught that “application was not properly the end of impetration, but the right and power of applying the death of Christ according to his most free pleasure by what means or by what conditions he wished.”94 Finally, the third rejection objected the Remonstrant notion of universal impetration, in which all human beings are restored into a state of grace and salvation. Although (as discussed in the previous chapter) most of the Remonstrants apparently denied this, Arminius and his disciple Borreus seemed to teach this. Furthermore, this was undoubtedly the position of the Lutheran Samuel Huber. Because it became well-​known that the British delegates had trouble agreeing among themselves and with the other delegations on the extent of Christ’s work, following the reading of their suffrage before the Synod the British delegates sent a letter back to England addressed to Archbishop Abbot explaining their “Reasons of enlarging Grace beyond Election.”95 The delegates reminded the archbishop that, in keeping with the king’s original instructions to them, they sought to couch their conclusions in language closely approximating the teaching of the ancient church, the confessions of the Church of England, and with as little offence to the Lutherans as possible. As for thesis 5, which extended the grace of Christ beyond the elect

John Davenant and the Synod of Dordt  85 (but contained it within the visible church), they believed that they could undermine both the Remonstrant position on the apostacy of true believers as well as the Remonstrant charge of an illusive gospel offer. Moreover, against the Remonstrants, the delegation did not “leave at large the benefit of our Saviour’s death . . . as only propounded loosely to all ex aequo, and to be applied by the arbitrary act of man’s will,” but they affirmed a special intention in Christ’s death to infallibly bring about the salvation of the elect (cf. theses 1 and 2).96 Moreover, they placed this special intention up front in their theses that their “care in advancing this Doctrine might be the more remarkable.”97 The initial disputes among the British delegates were a microcosm of the Reformed more generally. Although they all confessed the same articles of faith, they clearly did not interpret them the same way. Once the British were able to come to some agreement in their suffrage, which taught a version of hypothetical universalism, their hope—​albeit illusory—​was that the Synod more generally might acquiesce to their arguments. As we know now, this did not happen. The various delegations, by and large, would not affirm the British doctrine regarding the ordained sufficiency of Christ’s death.

4.3.2  The British Influence on the Formation of the Second Main Doctrine Especially since Robert Godfrey’s dissertation on the British delegation’s moderating influence at the Synod of Dordt, most scholars have accepted the fact that the Second Main Doctrine at Dordt responding to the Remonstrants’ Second Article was written in such a way as to make room for English hypothetical universalism.98 To be sure, it did not positively countenance such a view, but it allowed someone like Davenant to subscribe to the Canons. We know that all the British delegates signed the Canons and publicly supported their publication. Ten years after the Synod, Davenant confessed, “As for the Synod of Dort, wee may bouldly affirm, that there is no one of the 5 points there determined, but iumps with the doctrine w[hi]ch our Professors in the Chair, & our Preachers in the pulpit have commonly taught with the approbation of our church.”99 Scholars have not, however, explained the process by which the British delegation impacted the final form of the Canons.100 Yet there is a wealth of manuscript evidence documenting the process of formulating the Canons of Dordt, including the role of the British delegation on the Second Main Point

86  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism of Doctrine. It is beyond the scope of this study to trace all the steps in the formation of the Canons, but Donald Sinnema’s essay helpfully outlines these steps.101 After each of the delegations presented their suffrages (Judicia) to the Synod, President Bogerman began to draw up a draft of the Canons. At around this time, the British delegation had been drafting what they considered to be theological advice concerning the drawing up of the Canons.102 This manuscript reflects the doctrines relating to the death of Christ which they hoped would find their way into the final Canons. One can see that in these six theses the emphasis is not on the efficacy of Christ’s death, but its sufficiency. Moreover, this sufficiency is an ordained sufficiency. They suggested six theses and five rejections of error. The first thesis taught that the sacrifice, given by the Son of God, was in itself infinitely valuable, being more than abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of each and every human being.103 This affirms, in Davenant’s terms, a mere sufficiency. The second thesis, however, claimed that the fruit of this expiatory sacrifice is not able to be proposed or applied to the damned angels or to human beings who have passed through this life in the same condition as the wicked angels, that is, being already dead in their sin.104 In other words, the gospel is not applicable to the already damned or fallen angels. The third thesis states God has willed that remission of sins is able to be announced to all living sinful human beings and is able to be actually applied to them on condition of faith and repentance.105 In making these latter two theses, the British delegation hoped to capitalize on the Contra-​Remonstrant concession at the Hague Conference that the death of Christ had acquired a means of salvation for human beings in a way that it did not for the fallen angels. As Davenant noted in “Dr Davenant on the Atonement”: [T]‌he Contra-​Remonstrants make a great difference between the state and condition of the wicked spirits, and men not-​elect; for that men have a way and means to avoid condemnation (i.e.) by believing. But if the Promise of the Gospel founded in Christ’s merits, Quisquis crediderit, salvus erit, do only belong to the Elect, then the non-​elect, though they should believe, should have no way or means of escaping condemnation. Because belief is not available to salvation from the nature of the act, but from the Will of God making the Promise, which according to the Contra-​Remonstrants in this promise is presumed to be confined only to the Elect. And so this Promise should no more pertain to the non-​elect than to the evil Angels, who, if they should repent and believe (admitting this impossible supposition) yet

John Davenant and the Synod of Dordt  87 could not be saved, because this Promise was never made to them; but to mankind as the Scripture speaketh.106

Bringing all three theses together, the implicit logic is that the inapplicability of the gospel to the fallen angels is not owing to the value of Christ’s death, which is infinite (thesis 1), but on account of the divine will (thesis 2). The gospel is not applicable to the fallen angels because God has not willed it to be so applicable. It is, however, applicable to all living human beings because God has willed it to be thus applicable (thesis 3). Again, the British delegation hoped that this would be conceded by the Contra-​Remonstrants at Dordt: We observe that in the Conference at the Haghe the Remonstrants and Contra-​Remonstrants, being pressed by Arguments on each side in this Second Article, they come to joyn issue in that which we hold to be the very truth; for in Collat. Bertian. pag. 154. the words of the Contra-​Remonstrants are these, lin. antepenult. Sed infideles, etsi promeriti quidem illi sint condemnationem, tamen est adhuc via aliqua & ratio (or as it is in Collat. Brandii p. 163. habent tamen medium) per quam meritam condemnationem illam possint evadere, nimirum si credant; neque enim resecta est omnis salutis spes quantisper in hac vita est, &c.107

With this general ordination concerning the salvation of all in Christ having been established, the fourth thesis (corresponding with the sixth thesis on the Second Article in their suffrage) claimed that God is not bound by any promise or covenant (pacto) to make known this gospel to all or to give effectual grace to all.108 The fifth thesis held that to whomever God deemed to announce the gospel, if they continue in their impenitence, such impenitence is not on account of any defect in the sacrifice but on account of their unbelief, their spurning of the gospel, and their trampling underfoot the blood of Christ (cf. Heb. 6).109 The last thesis corresponded to the first two theses of the Second Article of their suffrage. It emphasized God’s special love and intention by which Christ offered himself and God the Father accepted the propitiatory sacrifice in such a way that Christ so died for the elect that not only are they able to obtain eternal life conditionally but also, on account of Christ, they effectually and infallibly obtain faith and all other things necessary to salvation.110

88  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism The first rejected error asserted that the one who says that the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross to take away the sins of the world was not a complete satisfaction, answering most exactly and fully to divine justice, despises the precious blood of the Son of God and contradicts Scripture.111 The second error similarly said that they undermine the gospel and oppose the revealed will of God who claim that any human being is excluded from the benefit of the death of Christ, so that even were they penitent and believing in the mediator, they are not able to inherit eternal life.112 While the first two errors clearly had in mind some in the Reformed community, the third error focused on the Remonstrants and Lutherans. The third thesis rejected the assertion that on account of the sacrificial offering of Christ any sinner is in an actual state of grace and restored to salvation before he or she is made new and believes in the mediator; those who assert this delude themselves in speculations and wander from the solid doctrine of Scripture.113 The fourth thesis claimed that anyone who said that the whole end of the death of Christ was that God the Father merely acquired the benefit of salvation conditionally applied sells short the death of Christ and it is manifest that he or she opposes Scripture.114 The last thesis rejected anyone who teaches that, with the death of Christ being posited, in the will of God there is not another intention for the salvation of certain persons except that which actually depends upon human faith—​which would entail that it is possible that no one might believe or be saved; this teaching ignores a divine intention to save the church, contradicting the whole of Scripture.115 While it is not clear what Bogerman and the other delegations made of this document, Bogerman’s attempt to draft the Canons of Dordt himself was quickly halted, largely at the behest of the British delegates.116 With the favor of the Dutch civil delegates, a drafting committee of nine delegates was set up (some who were Dutch and others who were foreign).117 After the drafting committee’s first draft, each of the nineteen delegations suggested changes. This process of creating a draft and soliciting a response happened for each of the three committee drafts. The British delegation offered a significant number of changes to the evolving draft of the Second Main Point of Doctrine, some more cosmetic, others more substantial. These suggested changes by the British were a source of frustration for the drafting committee. The Genevan member of the drafting committee Jean Diodati wrote, “In the making of the Canons, the English made it so difficult that it lost us almost three weeks.”118

John Davenant and the Synod of Dordt  89 4.3.2.1 The First Committee Draft Even from the very first committee draft of the Canons, which followed closely Bogerman’s initial draft, the British were concerned—​a concern Davenant himself often had119—​that the sufficiency of Christ’s death be not overshadowed by an emphasis on election and reprobation.120 In the draft committee’s first thesis of the section titled “Concerning the death of Jesus Christ and the redemption of mankind,” they focused their attention on the sufficiency of Christ’s death—​affirming a mere sufficiency.121 In thesis 2, the committee draft moved immediately to the special council of the Father in sending Christ for the redemption of the elect or believers.122 The British delegation thought that this too quickly jumped to the decree of election and reprobation and passed over salient points related to the general sufficiency of Christ’s death. According to the British, this overly quick sequence, by immediately moving to the decree of election and reprobation and thus the exclusion of the greater part of humanity from all capacity of redemption, was prone to discourage rather than lure unbelievers to their Redeemer.123 Instead, the British argued that given this “great moment” (tanti momenti) in time, the Synod should follow the example of Jesus Christ rather than their own private judgment in expounding this doctrine of for whom Christ died.124 They cited various Scripture texts (Jn. 3:16; Mk. 16:15–​16; Ac. 13:38–​ 39, 46, and 48) and briefly explained how Christ and the Apostles taught the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death. The British argued that in each of these texts, the gospel was offered indiscriminately to all. They thus proposed three additional theses to be inserted into this section between the first and second (committee) theses.125 The first proposed thesis said that by a peremptory decree (peremptorio decreto), all the wicked angels were excluded from the sacrifice of Christ (though it be infinite in value) so that under no condition was it able to be either proposed to them or applied to them.126 Moreover, all the damned, that is, all who had died in impiety and infidelity, were excluded from the death of Christ and thus were in the same condition as the wicked angels. The second suggested thesis argued that God so loved the human race that he decreed to give remission of sins and eternal life to anyone believing in the Redeemer, who offered this most sufficient sacrifice to God in order to take away the sins of the world.127 Finally, the third suggested thesis claimed that notwithstanding the love of God revealed in the former thesis, a countless number of those who are offered remission of sins and eternal life in the gospel spurn this offer and remain hardened in

90  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism their own sin and infidelity, and thus they perish not because of any defect in the sacrifice but on account of their own unbelief.128 After suggesting these theses, the British delegation offered a reworking of the committee’s second thesis, adding at the beginning, “But lest this most-​ sufficient and most-​valuable death of Christ take place in vain, it was the singular plan and special will of God the Father to effectually redeem [the elect].”129 In other words, the decree of predestination made certain that the death of Christ actually resulted in the salvation of certain persons. After suggesting a single additional word to the third draft committee thesis,130 the British took exception to much of the fourth committee thesis, which argued that when the Scripture said Christ died for all and made propitiation for the sins of all, the “all” is either to be interpreted as referring to all people (or nations) without distinction (indiscriminatim) or to the community of those to be saved (or the world of the church).131 Further, the committee thesis claimed this interpretation of such Scripture texts was the view of the ancient church, especially those who fought against the Pelagians. The British began their response to this fourth thesis by suggesting that the Canons need not give an interpretation to those Scripture texts.132 Yet if the Canons must address the question, the British were able to admit of no interpretation that excluded an ordination from God’s benevolence according to which a mode or means (modus sive medius)—​a means or mode denied to the damned and the devils—​was provided by which those living might evade condemnation and attain eternal life.133 In response to the notion that Scripture speaks only of Christ dying for “the community of those to be saved” (ad universitatem salvandorum), the British acknowledged that there are Scripture passages that refer to this group of people, that is, the elect, but those passages are not those that speak simply of Christ dying for all.134 Rather, when this “community of those to be saved” is denoted in Scripture as the object of Christ’s death, it is in those passages that speak of the death of Christ in conjunction with (complicatam) God’s special intention to effectually apply the death of Christ.135 Accordingly, for the British it was not evident that the “all” in Scripture passages such as 1 Jn. 2:2 must be narrowed to the elect or world of the church. Regarding the claim that the committee’s interpretation of these passages is consonant with the ancient church’s view, the delegation suggested a more accurate understanding of the Pelagian debate was necessary. The British asserted that “ ‘Christ died for all and not for only the elect’ was never set down as among the errors of the Pelagians.”136 Nor was this proposition

John Davenant and the Synod of Dordt  91 deemed a semi-​Pelagian error by Augustine or his followers. Indeed, although Augustine, Prosper, and others were charged with holding that “our Savior was not crucified for the redemption of the whole world,” they never acknowledged it as their own position, but instead rebuffed it as a false accusation.137 Finally, the delegation reminded the committee that the orthodox Fathers taught that nonelect children in baptism had the remission of original sin on account of the blood of Christ.138 Thus, for the Augustinians, the death of Christ might even be said to have been applied to some nonelect! In summary, the British insisted the issue with the Pelagians and semi-​Pelagians was not their belief that Christ died for all, but that saving faith arose from each person’s free choice rather than being a special gift from God. In light of all these complaints about the fourth thesis, the British concluded the committee should either amend it or omit it entirely. Responding to the final thesis of the draft committee, which spoke of the new covenant’s relationship to the elect, with its attending gifts such as saving faith, the British judged it “obscure and improperly expressed.”139 The British emphasized that while it was true that the giving of Christ as a mediator was the foundation of all the promises of the new covenant, properly speaking those promises were the gifts of pardon, grace, and glory proclaimed as things to be conferred upon those in the covenant. In other words, strictly speaking Christ is not the promise of the new covenant but its foundation. Along with their positive theses, the drafting committee composed four theses to be rejected.140 Not surprisingly, the British again had their complaints about the wording of the proposed rejections. After suggesting a brief change in the wording of the first rejection (exchanging the words “blasphemous” for “erroneous” and “speculative” for “foolish”),141 they recommended that the committee altogether avoid the sort of “thorny and unhelpful speculations” (spinosas et inutiles speculationes) involved in the ordering of the decrees as found in Grevinchovius’s writings.142 Yet if the committee insisted on addressing these speculative notions, the British thought such responses “ought to be made briefly, and, at the same time, avoid condemning something which admits of a suitable interpretation.”143 In other words, the British hoped that the committee, in their condemnation of the Arminian formulation, would not also condemn language that could be affirmed in an orthodox manner. For example, in their first draft, the committee rejected those who taught that Christ satisfied for and was reconciled to the whole human race by his death in such a way that he acquired a new right, power, and willingness to deal with mankind once more

92  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism in the entering of a new covenant with them.144 In response, the British stated that it “certainly ought not to be denied that an effect of the death of Christ is that God the Father, by his saving vindicative justice, wills and is able to deal with mankind under the conditions of the new covenant”—​namely, that whoever believes is able to obtain remission of sins and eternal life, which is the very substance of the gospel preached (Haec est ipsissima evangelicae nostrae praedicationis summa).145 The British also pushed back against the committee’s thesis that rejected the distinction between impetration and application.146 The British conceded that the distinction was wrongly used by the Arminians to make the application of Christ’s death depend solely upon free choice. Yet the British delegation insisted that the distinction between impetration and application need not be used in this way.147 Instead, it could and should be interpreted in an orthodox way, as teaching that a way or means had been impetrated by the death of Christ by which all are able to be reconciled if they believe—​even for them to whom it will never be applied on account of their unbelief.148 Therefore, although the British insisted on rejecting the Arminian use of the impetration/​application distinction, which deprived the act of applying the death of Christ to the special grace of God and left it to human free choice, they did not wish that the distinction itself be condemned if understood in an orthodox fashion. It is worth observing that the British delegation approached the Remonstrant use of impetration somewhat differently than Ussher did, even though they agreed in substance. Like most Contra-​Remonstrants, Ussher interpreted the Remonstrants’ employment of universal impetration as implying that Christ’s impetration brings about the actual reconciliation of all human beings, such that all are actually remitted of their sins. Ussher, along with Davenant and the British delegation, clearly denied this understanding of impetration. Yet the British realized, perhaps unlike Ussher, that while Arminius himself may have understood universal impetration in this manner, the Remonstrants more generally limited impetration to the acquisition of God’s right (according to his divine justice) to redeem all—​not the actual reconciliation of all.149 The British delegation (and Ussher) did not reject this latter understanding of impetration, but instead rejected the Remonstrant refusal to affirm that God in Christ has impetrated special grace for the elect alone. In other words, along with the Remonstrants, the British affirmed that Christ acquired (or impetrated) the right to forgive all

John Davenant and the Synod of Dordt  93 human beings on account of a universal satisfaction for sins, but Christ’s impetration may not be limited to this. Christ has also impetrated, acquired, or merited all the to-​be-​applied saving graces for the elect. As noted earlier, Ussher argued for both of these affirmations. In summary, although it may seem that Ussher’s denial of the Remonstrant affirmation of universal impetration and the British delegation’s affirmation of an orthodox interpretation of universal impetration are at odds with each other, they are in fact consistent. Both Ussher and the British delegation denied that all human beings actually obtain reconciliation with God by means of Christ’s impetration.150 Moreover, they both agreed that God, by means of Christ’s work, impetrated the gift of saving faith for the elect alone.151 Finally, they affirmed, consistent with the Remonstrants, that the work of Christ has impetrated/​obtained the reconcilability of all human beings.152 4.3.2.2 The Second Committee Draft The British complaints led the committee to jettison their first draft of the Second Main Point of Doctrine and draw up nine new articles.153 These articles, found in the committee’s second draft, reflected the concerns of the British, especially their emphasis on the sufficiency of Christ’s death.154 While the second draft did not insert the doctrine of an ordained sufficiency, which supposed an intention on God’s part to send Christ to suffer for the sins of all human beings as taught by the British and Bremen delegations, it does reflect the influence of those two delegations. Unlike the previous draft, this draft began with four theses expressly referring to the infinite value of Christ’s death, what Davenant termed “mere sufficiency.” Moreover, the special intention of Christ having died for the elect is not discussed until the eighth thesis, in contrast to its original position in the earlier draft as the second thesis. Theses 5 and 6 reflect a new emphasis on the indiscriminate nature of the gospel offer and the culpability of unbelief as owing not to any insufficiency in Christ’s death. When comparing the first and second committee drafts of the rejection of errors, it might appear that the British delegation’s comments fell on deaf ears. However, a close examination of the relatively small changes tells a different story. In the first rejected thesis, the only change made was the suggestion offered by the British.155 The second thesis, originally rejecting the doctrine that “Christ had reconciled the whole human race thus far

94  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism to the Father that a right, power, willingness, has been acquired” to deal with mankind once more in the entering of a new covenant with them, now added the word tantum (only).156 By adding tantum, the thesis now rejected the notion that Christ “only” acquired that benefit. This modification is in keeping with the initial complaint by the British—​that one should not deny this benefit has been acquired by Christ’s death—​and it reflects the final form of the Canons in rejections II and III, which ended up rejecting those who teach: That it was not the end of the death of Christ that he should confirm the new covenant of grace through his own blood, but only that he should acquire for the Father the mere right to enter once more into a covenant with human beings, whether of grace or of works.157 That Christ by his own satisfaction certainly merited salvation itself or faith for no one, by which this satisfaction of Christ unto salvation is effectually applied; but that he only aquired for the Father the authority or the perfect will to deal again with human beings.158

While the first committee draft was written such that it condemned the belief that Christ acquired the right to enter into a new covenant with mankind, the second draft, following the feedback of the British delegation, permitted such a view so long as it was not understood as the only (tantum) saving benefit of Christ’s death. Notably, in the committee’s positive theses, there is no affirmation that this right has been obtained. This omission in the positive theses perhaps indicates differences between the hypothetical universalists and others at the Synod. The former strongly affirmed that the death of Christ made all human beings reconcilable to God, while the latter generally did not agree.159 Yet the final form of the Canons did not condemn this belief, unlike the first committee draft. Both the third and fourth rejection articles were rewritten. Of note, the fourth thesis no longer rejected the distinction between impetration and application tout court, but rejected those who used the distinction to instill among the innocent and unskilled (incautis et imperitis) the belief that “God, as far as he is concerned, wished to confer equally upon all people the benefits which were acquired by the death of Christ.”160 Therefore, the British delegation, which certainly denied that Christ died equally for all,161 could affirm the Dordtian rejection.

John Davenant and the Synod of Dordt  95 4.3.2.3 The Third Committee Draft After the second committee draft was dictated to each of the delegations, the British delegation gave their opinion on this draft. Thesis 1 originally said that God’s “justice (which God is not able to deny)” demanded that sins against God’s majesty should be punished.162 The British suggested the parenthetical remark be changed to “(as he has revealed himself in the word),” likely wishing to avoid speculation about whether God could have remitted sin without the death of Christ.163 Regardless, this suggested wording was adopted and ended up in the third draft and final form of the Canons.164 Between theses 4 and 5, the British suggested a whole new thesis related to the promise of the gospel. It maintained that the promise of eternal life for those who believe is to be promiscuously and indiscriminately (promiscue et indiscriminatim) proclaimed to all nations.165 This thesis, word for word, ended up as the fifth thesis of the Second Main Point of Doctrine in the Canons.166 As for the eighth thesis, the British delegation again suggested revisions. They suggested adding a sentence about persevering faith being effectually given to the elect according to God’s eternal decree on account of the merit of Christ’s death and God leading them infallibly to eternal life.167 This idea was incorporated into the final draft of the Canons.168 Second, they suggested modifying the beginning of the thesis, which initially read, “For in order that this most precious death of Christ not be ineffectual [irrita], it was the singular council and most gracious will and intention of God that the death of Christ . . .”169 The British proposed this beginning: “For it was the most free council and most gracious will and intention of God that the death of Christ . . .”170 The committee also acquiesced to this suggestion.171 It seems the only suggestion not incorporated was an alternative beginning of the thesis: “For although the Son of God died for all with regard to the dignity and sufficiency of the price, nevertheless it was the most free council and most gracious will and intention of God the Father . . .”172 The British also made suggestions to the second committee draft of the rejections, yet we have only the record of the actual changes made to the second committee draft of rejections. On the first rejection, a couple of proof texts (Jn. 10:15, 17; Is. 53:10) were added in support of Christ dying for the elect.173 Regarding the second rejection, the committee inserted another tantum (only) in the first clause, which originally rejected those who taught “that Christ had satisfied for sins thus far to the Father . . . that a right, power, willingness, has been acquired” to deal savingly with mankind.174 Again, like

96  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism the previous addition of tantum in the second clause of the first committee draft, this additional tantum allowed the hypothetical universalists to affirm that Christ made satisfaction for the sins of all, resulting in God acquiring the right to forgive sins, so long as they did not teach that Christ did “only” or merely that. Although this addition was made to the third draft,175 this rejection article underwent considerable change just before the final form of the Canons.176 The committee also made a few minor changes to the third rejection, such as adding the phrase “and the grace of the covenant,” resulting in a denial of those who say that on account of Christ’s death, all human beings are brought “into a state of reconciliation and the grace of the covenant.”177 This addition presumably was in direct response to the Arminius-​Borreus position. This is also true for the addition of “or to be damned” to “no one, on account of original sin, is liable to damnation or to be damned.”178 In the third rejection article, an important word was added. Initially the thesis rejected those who taught that “God, as far as he was concerned, willed those benefits which were acquired by the death of Christ equally for all.” The modification to this rejection thesis was to add the infinitive conferre as the direct object of voluisse, such that now it rejected the idea that God equally willed to confer those blessings obtained by Christ’s death upon all people. While this change may appear minor at first, this addition not only more accurately attacked the doctrine of the Remonstrants; it simultaneously created further room for the views of the British divines. One can see how this change permitted those like Davenant to affirm a divine will by which God can be said to will the salvation of all human beings equally, insofar as he offered a payment price for the sins of all human beings.179 After the changes to the second committee draft were finalized, the committee solicited changes to the third draft.180 The third committee draft resulting from the feedback of the various delegations on the second draft is very similar to the final form of the Canons. Yet the British still insisted on some last-​minute changes to the third draft. In fact, seemingly against such changes, the Swiss delegates Johann Breitinger and Mark Rütimeyer “urged acceptance of the suggestions they had made to the second committee draft, and they cautioned against allowing certain individuals (presumably British theologians) to have slippery phrases inserted into the Canons.”181 Less coy was Diodati, who wrote a letter to his Genevan colleague Benedict Turretin a day after the suggestions on the second committee draft were made. Diodati complained that Ward and Davenant were being overly scrupulous and disagreeable by approving the fundamentals but wanting to insert or permit

John Davenant and the Synod of Dordt  97 dangerous points with which they agreed, along with the Bremen delegates, but not agreed by the other delegates.182 Diodati noted that he and other delegates did not wish to “give in any more,” implying that the British had been generally getting what they wanted and that the Synod had been conceding to them.183 Chief among the changes made to the third draft of the Canons were changes made to the second and sixth rejections of the Second Main Point of Doctrine. The British were especially concerned that in addressing the errors of Grevinchovius in the second rejection, the Synod was involving itself in the overly speculative debate on the ordering of God’s decree(s).184 After all, seeing that the most skilled of theologians scarcely understands such intricate debates, how could the Synod expect the unlearned to understand these things? If the Synod still insisted on addressing Grevinchovius’s speculations, it would be best to stick to what Grevinchovius said rather than exhibiting “our own judgment [pro nostro arbitrio].”185 According to the British, the rejection (as it had been written) seemed to reject (and implied that Grevinchovius taught) the belief that even after Christ’s death, God had decreed nothing concerning the conditions of salvation, whether of faith or of works. The British alleged that in Grevinchovius’s own teaching, such speech respecting the eternal decrees of God was to be understood according to our mode of thinking.186 The British were worried that this this did not accurately express Grevinchovius’s views. After all, Grevinchovius (according to the British) understood the decree “that no one is a participant of this remission [offered on account of Christ’s death] unless it has been applied by the condition of faith” as “fixed and established from all eternity” rather than as a temporal decree.187 The British acknowledged that by Grevinchovious’s speculations, some destructive errors resulted which the Synod could reject. Still they insisted that the Synod should avoid these “curious inquiries [curiosis disquisitionibus].”188 As the particular rejection thesis stood, the Synod would be brought into this “most-​stupid” debate whether they wished to or not.189 Ultimately, engaging Grevinchovius in the debate about the ordering of God’s decrees would be below the practice and dignity of the Synod.190 Moreover, the British advised that the thesis, as written, would not allow some, who otherwise would reject the opinion of Grevinchovius, to accept the specific thesis without taking some exception to it. Because of these reasons, the British proposed that the thesis be either

98  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism completely (prorsus) omitted or substantially modified.191 They offered the following substitute rejection thesis: If anyone teaches that the exclusive and entire end of Christ’s death was that it acquired for God the Father a bare right or the mere power to save human beings, under which conditions he wishes, whether of faith or works; and that it merited for no one salvation itself and the faith by which this death of Christ is effectually applied for salvation, but that some believe and are saved depends on the free choice of mankind. Then these ones think too contemptuously about the death of Christ, in no way acknowledge the primary benefit brought forth and intended by his death, and revive from hell the error of Pelagius.192

Although this suggested thesis was not received as a whole, the committee made last-​minute changes to the second rejection by splitting it into three separate theses. Notably absent in each of these three new theses is any discussion of the ordering of God’s decree. Moreover, much of the language found in the aforementioned proposed rejection thesis of the British ended up in the three new rejection theses.193 The sixth rejection thesis, which had been added by the committee late in the drafting process, rejected the idea that the similitude of our human nature in the person of Jesus Christ was unnecessary for the fitness and sufficiency of the price.194 The British had several complaints.195 First, they questioned whether this should be deemed a Remonstrant error or, more narrowly, an error of the Remonstrant Conrad Vorstius. Second, they said that if the thesis described an absolute necessity by which God, even before his decree, had to save human beings by means of Christ taking on human nature, then that was a question better left for the schools. Third, the British pointed out that some of the Fathers and Reformed taught that Christ did not “simply and absolutely” need to take on our human nature for the price of our redemption.196 Finally, if the necessity was conditional, supposing God’s decree and will, then the rejected thesis would stand, but it would not reject what the Remonstrants rejected—​viz. an absolute necessity. Hence, the British recommended the Synod omit the thesis. The thesis was, in fact, omitted from the final form of the Canons, and the British (along with the other delegates) subscribed to the theses and rejections of the Second Main Doctrine on April 23, 1619.197

John Davenant and the Synod of Dordt  99

4.4  Conclusion The Synod of Dordt, like no other previous event, highlighted the substantial differences among the various Reformed churches on the extent of the atonement. Previous to Dordt, three main positions had emerged among the Reformed regarding the extent of Christ’s work: the Remonstrant, Contra-​Remonstrant, and hypothetical universalist positions. Ussher and Overall represent early advocates of this distinctive hypothetical universalism, and their theology is a precursor to that of the English hypothetical universalists at the Synod of Dordt. Like Ussher and Overall, the British delegation argued that their views on the extent of Christ’s satisfaction not only avoided the Scylla and Charybdis of the Contra-​Remonstrants and the Remonstrants but also represented the theology of the Church of England as it was grounded on the views of the ancient church, most notably the Augustinian tradition. Ussher’s theological argumentation suggests many lines of continuity with the English hypothetical universalists at Dordt, including Davenant’s own defense in De Morte Christi. All rejected the notion that Christ impetrated remission of sins and reconciliation with God for all such that every person is actually reconciled to God on account of Christ’s death. Furthermore, all taught God had decreed that Christ, by his person and work, merited the gift of saving faith and perseverance for the elect alone. Indeed, they also all affirmed the conditional application of the death of Christ according to the conditions of the covenant, namely, faith and repentance. Even so, they all insisted that God ordained Christ to be the mediator for each and every human being, making satisfaction for the sins of all. Both the Contra-​Remonstrants and the hypothetical universalists vied for their own views to be confessed at the Synod of Dordt, but what ended up happening was a compromise. By giving careful attention to the shaping of the draft canons, it becomes clear that the British and the Dutch affirmed everything they could agree upon and avoided specifically condemning their differences. Gatiss is undoubtedly right when he claims to the degree that the Canons of Dordt teach definite atonement, to that same degree Davenant and the British delegation as a whole also taught the doctrine of definite atonement.

100  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism While Dordt represented a compromise, Davenant was not finished with a defense of the orthodoxy and catholicity of his hypothetical universalism. The next three chapters will attempt to explain how he went on to defend his hypothetical universalism against the Contra-​Remonstrants, who denied that Christ died for all sufficiently, and against the Remonstrants, who denied that Christ died for the elect alone effectually.

5 John Davenant on the Extent of Christ’s Atoning Work 5.1  Introduction As noted in the introductory chapter, Davenant’s hypothetical universalism is often classified as a via media between Arminianism and Reformed theology or Calvinism. Identifying its essential elements has been difficult for scholars, even though one well-​known modern evangelical church historian once described Davenant’s hypothetical universalism as “not developed in any highly elaborate way.”1 While older scholarship lumped English hypothetical universalism with later French Amyraldian expositions of the extent of Christ’s work, often identifying the order of God’s decrees as the essential distinguishing feature of hypothetical universalism, newer scholarship has moved away from thinking in terms of decretal ordering with regard to the English species of hypothetical universalism. Still, the precise differences between English hypothetical universalism and other Reformed positions have proved elusive. For example, modern interpreters of hypothetical universalism often overlook its affirmation, at least among the English, that Christ died for the elect alone savingly or efficaciously—​a thesis held in common with their Contra-​Remonstrant interlocutors. Take, for example, Henri Blocher’s recent criticism of hypothetical universalism.2 Blocher wonders how hypothetical universalists can affirm that redemption accomplished or “[o]‌bjective redemption” is lacking nothing in Christ’s death when “[s]omething else must be done, in addition to what Christ did, that the person be saved. This remains even if the condition is met by a divine gift, as long as this gift is not secured by the atonement itself.”3 Yet, according to Davenant, as will be shown, the “divine gift” of faith is procured by the atonement itself.4 In other words, Blocher wrongly presumes hypothetical universalists did not affirm that Christ’s atoning work merits (for the elect alone) the conditions requisite for the (infallible) application of redemption: faith and repentance. In fact, John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism. Michael J. Lynch, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197555149.003.0005

102  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism Davenant’s chief argument against the Remonstrants was that the Scriptures do teach that faith and repentance, to use Blocher’s words, are “secured, and thus made certain (not immediate), by Christ’s death.”5 Like the Contra-​ Remonstrants, hypothetical universalists affirmed that Christ died for the elect alone in a way that he did not die for the nonelect, namely by meriting all the to-​be-​applied saving benefits of his work for the elect alone. This, Davenant believed, is implied in the second part of the Lombardian formula. Such examples of misunderstanding within secondary literature could be multiplied.6 This chapter, then, will give a close examination of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism with the hope that future expositions will rightly interpret all its relevant contours. To this end, this chapter will lay out Davenant’s own hypothetical universalism in light of the previous historical chapters. Indeed, Davenant’s De Morte Christi was written after Dordt and had in view not only the pre-​Reformation debates on the extent of Christ’s work but also the Remonstrant and Contra-​Remonstrant debates in the earlier part of the seventeenth century. As this chapter sets out to show, Davenant’s via media is not a via media between Arminianism and Calvinism but a recovery or, better, a defense of the Lombardian formula. Against Arminianism, which denied that Christ died for the elect efficaciously, and against certain Reformed positions, which moved away from the classic Lombardian doctrine of Christ dying sufficiently for all, Davenant considered his doctrine of the extent of Christ’s work as a continuation of orthodox teaching regarding the extent of Christ’s atoning work. This chapter will first provide a general overview of Davenant’s argument and his interlocutors. Then the bulk of the chapter will give a careful exposition of the main contours of Davenant’s argument for hypothetical universalism against both the Contra-​Remonstrant and the Remonstrant positions.

5.2  Davenant’s Interlocutors: A Taxonomy of Positions In order to properly appreciate Davenant’s position on the extent of Christ’s death, it is important first to lay out the various positions to which he responded and animadverted. The first is the Remonstrant position. As already noted in the previous chapters, the Remonstrant position, at its most basic level, denied that Christ died for the elect in a way that he did not die for the nonelect. Put another way, by affirming that Christ died equally for all, the Remonstrants denied, to use the language of Dordt (2.8), that there

John Davenant on the Extent of Christ’s Atoning Work  103 was a “will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving efficacy of his Son’s most-​precious death should work itself out in all the elect, in order that God would grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them infallibly to salvation.”7 Davenant’s final chapter in De Morte Christi is dedicated to combating the Remonstrant denial of this thesis. As Davenant saw it, the state of the question between the Arminians and the Reformed was whether there was a special intention or ordination in Christ’s death for the elect alone. The Arminians said no, whereas the Reformed said yes.8 Davenant’s chief interlocutor was the Remonstrant Nicolaas Grevinchovius, who unambiguously denied that “by a certain council and will of God the application itself of Christ’s death was destined to any human being except believers and as they are believers.”9 Davenant identified within the Remonstrant camp two different opinions respecting the application of Christ’s death. Although many Reformed theologians interpreted the Remonstrants as teaching that the death of Christ brought about the actual application of remission of sins and reconciliation of all human beings, Davenant did not. While admitting that the Remonstrants spoke “ambiguously and obscurely” on the point, in Davenant’s judgment “they are free from this error.”10 Davenant said that during the Conference at The Hague (1611) the Remonstrants cleared up any ambiguity that may have been present. Notwithstanding the majority of the Remonstrants, Davenant did think that some of them “went a little farther in some of these things.”11 He specifically highlighted the language of the Remonstrants Adrian Borreus, Jacob Arminius, and Johannes Arnoldi Corvinus, who argued that because the covenant of grace was made with Adam and his posterity, the whole human race was received into the covenant.12 Davenant also lumped Samuel Huber and Francesco Pucci into this latter category.13 On one side of Davenant, then, were the Remonstrants and others who denied a special divine intention to save only the elect on account of Christ’s work. As we shall see, according to Davenant’s interpretation of the Lombardian formula, these theologians denied the second part of the formula (Christ died for the elect alone, effectually). Among this group were not only those Remonstrants who taught that only believers participate in actual reconciliation and remission of sins but those theologians who extended the actual saving efficacy of Christ’s death to all human beings. The second main group of theologians, coming from Reformed churches and standing on the opposite end of the spectrum, were those who denied any intention or will on God’s part to send Christ on behalf of all human

104  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism beings. Put in the language Davenant was accustomed to use, these theologians denied an ordained sufficiency and thus denied the first part of the Lombardian formula. Within this group, Davenant identified three different approaches to denying an ordained sufficiency. The first group “strenuously holds that Christ died for only the elect, and nevertheless . . . admits that Christ died sufficiently for all.”14 Davenant acknowledged—​perhaps somewhat sarcastically—​that he was unable to understand this position: “I confess, I am too slow to understand.”15 He specifically cited the Contra-​ Remonstrants at the Hague Conference and the Nassau delegation in their suffrage at Dordt. The Nassau delegation, on the one hand, wrote that “when Christ is said to die for all, this can be understood with respect to the sufficiency of the merit or magnitude of the price.”16 On the other hand, they affirmed that “Christ died adequately for all and only the elect,” limiting the priestly work of Christ to the elect alone.17 The second subgroup Davenant identified were those, such as Johann Piscator, who openly denied the Lombardian formula’s claim that Christ died sufficiently for all.18 Piscator understood that the Lombardian formula presumed an ordained sufficiency in the death of Christ: “It cannot be said that Christ died for all sufficiently, because it would follow that he died for all.”19 In fact, Piscator followed Theodore Beza’s own reasoning: “The little word FOR [in “Christ sufficiently died FOR all”] here denotes the end or scope of Christ dying, and by consequence the efficacy of his death.”20 As will become apparent, Davenant agreed with Piscator’s interpretation of the Lombardian formula, though he rejected his understanding of the sufficiency of Christ’s death. The final subgroup (which ought not to be interpreted as mutually exclusive with the first group) were “some of those who strongly hold that Christ suffered and died for the elect alone, while wanting to appear to defend not just the mere sufficiency of the death of Christ in itself, but that ordained sufficiency from the intention of God which we [i.e., Davenant et al.] assert.”21 According to Davenant, these theologians spoke of God intending or willing that Christ’s death be sufficiently valuable for all human beings, rather than affirming an actual ordained sufficiency.22 Thus, William Ames: “When we confess that Christ died for all, that phrase ‘for all’ is admitted by our party on account of its sufficiency and the intention of God, by which he willed that it should be thus sufficient for all.”23 Similarly, the Hessian delegation at Dordt claimed, “The counsel and decree of God the Father was that Christ by his suffering and death should pay a ransom of such a kind, as,

John Davenant on the Extent of Christ’s Atoning Work  105 considered in itself . . . might be abundantly sufficient for the reconciliation to God of all people.”24 As Davenant surveyed the situation, each of these Reformed subgroups denied, either explicitly or implicitly, that Christ died for all human beings—​that is, that God willed that Christ be a mediator for all, making satisfaction for the sins of all human beings. Each chapter of De Morte Christi must be interpreted in light of these alternative positions. Chapter 1, which surveyed the debates on the extent of Christ’s work previous to Davenant’s own day, was itself polemical. As we have already seen, Davenant took the opportunity to critique both the Remonstrants and the Contra-​Remonstrants for misinterpreting these earlier ecclesiastical debates, most notably the positions of Augustine and Prosper. The Remonstrants could not claim Augustine as a patron of their position because he clearly taught that Christ died for the elect in a way he did not die for the nonelect; but the Contra-​Remonstrants, who denied that Christ died for all and thought that the alternative position was Pelagian, were also shown to be misinterpreting the history. This first chapter is especially noteworthy when read with the Synod of Dordt as its background. As noted in the previous chapter of our study, the Contra-​Remonstrants initially wished the Canons would condemn the proposition that Christ died for all as a Pelagian doctrine. Davenant, along with the rest of the British delegation, argued instead that Prosper (speaking for the Augustinians) deemed the accusation of the semi-​Pelagians—​that Augustine taught Christ died only for the elect—​to be false. Chapters 2 and 3 of De Morte Christi were clearly written to counter those Reformed theologians who denied Christ made a universal remedy for sins on behalf of each and every person. For example, Davenant rejected the idea that ministers offer Christ only for the penitent, and thus Christ is not a universal remedy.25 Yet even regarding the thesis of the second chapter, some continuity with the Contra-​Remonstrants should be noted. Davenant emphasized that Christ, as a remedy for sins, is applicable only to living human beings, not the damned nor the fallen angels, just as the Contra-​ Remonstrants argued. Moreover, he agreed with the Palatinate delegation at Dordt that the gift of faith for the elect presumes the decree of Christ’s death.26 Chapter 3 addressed the various objections against Davenant’s thesis regarding a universal remedy found in the second chapter. After emphasizing that he was not arguing the universal impetration position taken by Arminius, Borreus, and the Lutherans, Davenant responds to the various Contra-​Remonstrant objections to an ordained universal

106  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism remedy. Chapter 4 targeted the meaning of the sufficiency of Christ’s death. Davenant argued for an ordained sufficiency against the various Contra-​ Remonstrants who affirmed only the infinite value or “mere sufficiency” of Christ’s death. Chapter 5, distinct from the former chapters, has the Remonstrant position largely in view. Nevertheless, even in this chapter, Davenant takes the opportunity to address unorthodoxy among his own Reformed community. Contrary to some of the Remonstrants and Lutherans who taught that the death of Christ actually reconciled all human beings to God, Davenant argued that God—​with respect to adults, at least—​is made only placable toward mankind by Christ’s death. Actual remission of sins and reconciliation is granted only when the conditions of the covenant of grace (faith and repentance) are fulfilled. Davenant also animadverted all positions that tended toward eternal justification or justification at the cross for the elect. He noted that the Dutch-​born Englishman Richard Thomson “mentions some [Reformed] persons who endeavor to prove that ‘through the dignity and efficacy of the merits of Christ, the sins of the elect were pardoned from eternity.’ ”27 Against this view, Davenant distinguished between God’s will to save the elect, which is eternal, and God’s act of saving the elect, which is in time, when God gives the gifts of faith and repentance to the elect. Chapter 6 is explicitly written against the Remonstrants who claimed that on account of Christ’s death for all, God is bound to give sufficient means of grace to all sinners by which they may be saved. Corvinus and other Remonstrants tied this sufficient grace to the light of nature rather than the preaching of the gospel. The final chapter of De Morte Christi, again written in opposition to the Remonstrant position, argued for an ordination in sending Christ to merit all the to-​be-​applied saving grace for the elect and the elect alone. The Remonstrants, generally speaking, insisted that Christ died equally for both reprobate and elect. Throughout the work, Davenant does not offer his view as a via media between Reformed orthodoxy and Arminianism. Rather, as his citation practices prove, he shows that his position is consistent with both the best of the patristic and medieval period as well as Reformed theology before it began to reject the first part of the Lombardian formula. In fact, Davenant thinks that his own view is the position of the Lombardian formula. In other words, for Davenant, English hypothetical universalism is the teaching of the Lombardian formula. The Contra-​Remonstrants often denied that Christ died sufficiently for all, while the Remonstrants denied that Christ died

John Davenant on the Extent of Christ’s Atoning Work  107 efficaciously for the elect alone; Davenant provides the Lombardian formula via media.

5.3  Contra the Contra-​Remonstrants While Davenant spends much of his time attacking the Remonstrants in De Morte Christi, it is easy to get the impression—​hardly unfounded—​that his main interlocutors were his fellow Reformed theologians. After all, the first few chapters are almost wholly dedicated to defending his own view on the extent of Christ’s work over and against the Contra-​Remonstrants and others perhaps suspicious of his universal redemption position. Apart from c­ hapters 6 and 7 of De Morte Christi, every chapter spends significant space pushing back against those within the Reformed community. Just as Davenant’s main concern with the Remonstrants was their denial of God’s special intention for Christ to merit the infallible salvation of the elect alone, so Davenant’s main concern with the Contra-​Remonstrants was their denial that God intended Christ to die for the nonelect in order to merit the possibility of salvation for all.

5.3.1  Universal Cause of Salvation Davenant’s first thesis in De Morte Christi—​and the thesis he judged to be both the “principal” and the “basis for the rest” of that work—​is as follows: “Holy Scripture represents the death of Christ as a universal remedy applicable to each and every human being for salvation on account of the ordinance of God and the nature of the thing.”28 Davenant begins the exposition and defense of this thesis, as he does all his theses, dealing with preliminary issues; in the first instance, he explains what he means by every part of the thesis. For example, “death of Christ” synecdochally denotes the entire work of Christ, both Christ’s active and passive obedience.29 The term “universal remedy” mirrors the scholastic language of Thomas Aquinas, who calls the death of Christ a “universal cause of salvation.” When Davenant says that Christ’s death is applicable to “each and every human being,” he specifically intends to exclude the apostate angels. Moreover, when he adds that it is applicable “according to the ordination of God and the nature of the thing,” he means that Christ’s death is not

108  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism applicable under any condition whatsoever, such as if Peter had persisted in unbelief, but under the conditions God ordained; it is not applicable to the damned or the dead.30 Davenant employs Scripture to defend his thesis, using passages such as Jn. 3:16–​18; Ac. 13:38ff.; 2 Cor. 5:18–​19; Heb. 2:3, 4:1ff.; 1 Tim. 2:6; and 1 Jn. 2:2. Not surprisingly, he considers Jn. 3:16 to be the Scripture text that most clearly encapsulates his thesis. According to Davenant, in this passage one finds an ordination for Christ to be a universal remedy, applicable to all human beings for salvation, with the condition of application attached. So Davenant writes, “Show me an individual of the human race to whom a gospel minister may not truly say: ‘God has so loved you that he gave his only begotten Son, that if you should believe in him, you shall not perish but have everlasting life.’ ”31 Davenant admitted that some “learned and pious” theologians interpreted the word “world” as referring to the elect, but he pushed back on this interpretation.32 Granting that this text teaches that the death of Christ eventually brings salvation, applied by means of faith, to the elect alone, Davenant insisted that “it cannot be inferred that it was not a remedy applicable to others, and, if they were to believe, should be applied, on account of the ordination of God.”33 Davenant’s interpretation of Jn. 3:16—​that is, interpreting “world” universally—​was hardly an outlier among his Reformed cohorts; it was consistent with how Calvin, Musculus, Zanchi, Ludovicus Crocius, and Ezekiel Culverwell, among others, interpreted the passage.34 Davenant insisted that while the work of Christ is applied conditionally—​ albeit infallibly—​to the elect alone, the giving of Christ as a savior was absolute. He distinguished the offering of Christ from two points of view. Resembling the language of Peter Lombard, the first point of view respects Christ’s offering to the Father: “in which [Christ] is understood to have been given or offered on the altar of the cross to God the Father to take away the sins of the world.”35 The second way of understanding the giving of Christ is as he is offered in the gospel proclamation, in which the benefits of Christ’s work to be applied are promised on condition of faith. Being the foundation of every offering of Christ to sinners in the gospel proclamation, the former offering of Christ to the Father cannot be described as conditional but absolute: For he offered himself simply [simpliciter], not conditionally, to God the Father. And this is proved from the fact that the Father himself, according

John Davenant on the Extent of Christ’s Atoning Work  109 to whose will the Son offered himself as a sacrifice, did not determine with himself to give a Redeemer to the world under this hypothesis—​“if the world would believe.” But God freely and absolutely gave his Son to the world, and the Son gave himself as a ransom price [λύτρον] to the Father to take away the sins of the world. A condition is indeed annexed in the preaching of the gospel, not to the giving, but to the eternal life which is to follow from the beneficial application of the thing given.36

Davenant even makes the point that while Christ and salvation are offered conditionally, those who have not yet and will not fulfill the conditions of the evangelical covenant still have “the right of claiming [ius vendicandi] the promised benefit, if they would fulfill it.”37 This giving of Christ to the Father, making a universal remedy for sins, is the basis of the indiscriminate gospel offer. To deny that Christ was ordained by God to be a universal remedy for the sins of all undermined the very logic of the gospel offer. So Davenant, commenting on 2 Cor. 5:18–​19, writes: Therefore those who so totally dwell upon and cling to the mystery of predestination that they, at the same time, trample upon and plainly subvert this reconciliation of the world, simultaneously undermine the substance [materiam] of our preaching the gospel, which chiefly consists in this: that we assure every person that God is so reconciled to him by the death of Christ, that if he believes in Christ, God will not impute to him his sins, but will bestow upon him eternal life.38

The logic runs as follows: the gospel offer, which ministers are called to proclaim indiscriminately, must include the proposition that God is, according to his divine justice and on account of the person and work of Jesus Christ, able to forgive any person of his or her sins.39 For this proposition to be true, it must antecedently be the case that God in Christ made a remedy for every person. According to Davenant, this universal remedy or universal cause of salvation obtained by Christ meant that Christ made a satisfaction to divine justice for all sinners such that God is able to save any human being: We, therefore, call Christ the Redeemer of the world and teach that he made satisfaction for the sins not of some people, but of the whole world, not that on account of the payment of this price for the sins of the human race each and every human being is to be immediately delivered from captivity and

110  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism death, but that by virtue of the payment of this price, each and every person may and ought to be delivered from death, and, in fact, will be delivered according to the tenor of the evangelical covenant [iuxta pacti Evangelici tenorem], that is, if they repent and believe in this Redeemer.40

Employing numerous theological arguments in service of his thesis, Davenant even dedicates a whole chapter (­chapter 3 of De Morte Christi) responding to various objections his interlocutors might make. Take, for example, Davenant’s belief that Christ, by God’s ordination, made a universal satisfaction for sins, and hence is a universal cause of salvation applicable to all.41 According to Davenant, the Scriptures, church Fathers, the Thirty-​Nine Articles of the Church of England, and even others “who are most accustomed to limit the death of Christ,” such as his fellow Reformed theologians, teach that Christ made a universal satisfaction for sins. Davenant quotes from David Pareus’s letter to Dordt: “The cause and matter of the passion of Christ was the sense and sustaining of God’s wrath kindled against the sins, not of some human beings, but of the whole race of mankind; whence indeed there is a universality of sin and of God’s wrath suffered by Christ against sin, but the whole of reconciliation was not impetrated or restored to all.”42 Davenant responds to the oft-​made objection against his belief in a universal satisfaction—​the double-​payment argument, as it has been called.43 As the argument went, if Christ made a satisfaction for all sins, then is not God obligated to forgive those sins for which he made satisfaction, seeing that it would be unjust to punish those sins both in the redeemer and in the sinner?44 Davenant concedes that this argument would work if sinners themselves paid the ransom price to God, or if Christ’s offering of himself would have immediately absolved sinners of their sin, or if God had covenanted to grant faith and all the other saving benefits infallibly to all on account of Christ’s death.45 Yet he denies any of these conditions to be the actual case. Because God himself paid the price due our sins, it was in his right to attach conditions to its application. Moreover, when Christ paid the price due our sins, he did not will that they be immediately forgiven, but only when we believe in him.46 The Father’s secret covenant with the Son regarding the infallible salvation of sinners does not regard all human beings, but only the elect.47 Therefore, Davenant believes there is no injustice on God’s part for Christ to be treated as a sinner on behalf of the sins of all, while not forgiving the sins of all.

John Davenant on the Extent of Christ’s Atoning Work  111 Because it was his fellow Reformed theologians who were most prone to object to his thesis, Davenant seems to cull these objections from earlier Contra-​Remonstrant writings. In all probability, some of the objections may even have stemmed from conversations Davenant had with the various delegates and delegations at the Synod of Dordt. Regardless, many of the objections can be found in Reformed literature of the period. For example, the very first argument Davenant brings up against his position involving those who were in hell at the time of Christ’s death is also argued by Davenant’s contemporary and fellow Dordtian delegate Heinrich Alting, who writes: If Christ died for each and every person, then he even died for those who were already at that time in hell, as Esau, Saul, Ahitophel, and even for those also whom he certainly knew would be going there. But, [he did not die] for those who were already at that time in hell, because there is no liberation from hell (Luke 16); Nor also for those whom he certainly knew would be going there, seeing that all those to be damned will have the same condition (excepting the gradation of penalties, which is disparate). Therefore, Christ did not die for each and every person.48

Alting’s argument not only presumes the double-​payment argument (as do many arguments against Davenant’s hypothetical universalism), but it seems to assume that, to use Davenant’s words, those who “were cast into hell had no more right in the benefit of redemption than the devils themselves.”49 Responding to this objection, Davenant grants that the death of Christ is not applicable to the dead and damned, yet it was applicable to those who died before the coming of Christ while they were alive. As Davenant explains, “It may be truly said of Cain, Esau, or indeed of any person who died before Christ suffered, that he may have been absolved from his sins and saved through the virtue of the sacrifice to be offered up by the Messiah, if he had believed in him.”50 Davenant even channels the argument of the Remonstrants at the Hague Conference with respect to the fallen angels. There is an applicability of Christ’s death to reprobates while they are alive, which applicability is never true of the devils. This applicability is grounded upon God’s intention (i.e., an ordained sufficiency) to provide a universal remedy for all human beings, but not for the fallen angels. Another argument found in the Contra-​ Remonstrant literature reasoned from Christ’s intercession for the elect to Christ having died only for

112  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism the elect. The Palatinate and Helvetic delegations, along with the five Dutch theologians in their suffrages, not to mention the Contra-​Remonstrants at The Hague, argued that “Christ died, rose again, and intercedes in heaven alongside the Father for the elect and faithful only, that is, partly in their place and partly for their good.”51 Davenant does not think this argument undermines his thesis in any way.52 God ordained his life, death, resurrection, and intercession for all, not in such a way as to be infallibly applied to all but to be available for all. He grants, for example, that insofar as God predestined to infallibly bestow the gift of faith on some, “in a certain special way, the death and resurrection of Christ, with the great treasure of his merits, may be restricted to the elect alone.”53 Nevertheless, “one should not deny that the death and merits of Christ, who took the single nature of all and the single cause of all, are of that kind that they may be announced, offered, and by faith applied to every individual partaker of human nature.”54 Because Davenant affirmed a special intention in the death of Christ of infallibly obtaining the actual salvation of the elect alone, many of the arguments that worked against the Remonstrants simply did not work against his position. For example, the very last argument Davenant addresses is an argument from Scripture that Christ died for his people (e.g., Matt. 1:21 and Jn. 10:15) and, hence, that he died for no other. Davenant grants that these texts teach that Christ died “in a special way” for the elect. But it did not follow, in his estimation, that Christ did not die for any others. Perhaps not coincidentally, Davenant ends his response to that objection (as well as his third chapter) with the very same quote from Ambrose that James Ussher himself quoted, using the same argument and even the same language that Davenant would now employ in De Morte Christi.55 Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of De Morte Christi defend the most controversial aspect of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism from a Reformed perspective: that Christ provided a universal remedy for the sins of all human beings. While such a thesis would perhaps not have been controversial in the first part of the sixteenth century, by the middle of the seventeenth century many Reformed theologians deemed such language little more than Arminianism. Time and again, however, Davenant insisted that although there is an infallible ordination to obtain the salvation of the elect, one ought not to deny that there was a general ordination by which Christ died for all so that the announcement of remission of sins and reconciliation with God on condition of faith is now able to be proclaimed indiscriminately.

John Davenant on the Extent of Christ’s Atoning Work  113

5.3.2  Ordained Sufficiency The purpose of Davenant’s fourth chapter is to cut through some of the perceived ambiguity among some of his Reformed contemporaries regarding the sufficiency of Christ’s death. Given that many of the Reformed were claiming along with the Palatinate theologians that “there is no dispute concerning the sufficiency of the payment price [λύτρον] of Christ for each and every person,” Davenant had to show that there was, in fact, controversy regarding the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all.56 Davenant begins the chapter observing, “[S]‌ome persons thus concede that Christ died for all human beings, who with the same breath assert that he died for the elect alone, and so expound that received distinction of Divines, that he died for all sufficiently, but for the elect effectually, that they entirely destroy [exstinguant] the first part.”57 As noted earlier in this chapter, Davenant identified at least three subgroups of Contra-​Remonstrants, distinguished by their position on the sufficiency of Christ’s death. Some, such as Piscator, simply denied that Christ died for the nonelect sufficiently. Yet many of the Contra-​Remonstrants wanted to affirm the original language of the Lombardian formula while denying that Christ died for all. A third group argued that God ordained the death of Christ to be a sufficient price for all, but not that he actually died for each and every human being. In Davenant’s judgment, these latter two positions only gave “lip-​service” to the first part of the Lombardian formula; they did not really affirm the substance of it. Such criticism, that many of the Reformed equivocated on their affirmation of the Lombardian formula, went back to the early Lutheran objections to the Reformed and was also a complaint Bishop Overall had.58 Davenant’s thesis for his fourth chapter in defense of his interpretation of the former part of the Lombardian formula is this: The death of Christ is acknowledged as the universal cause of human salvation, and Christ himself has died for all sufficiently, not on account of its mere [nudae] sufficiency or its intrinsic value, according to which the death of God [mors Dei] is a price more than sufficient to redeem a thousand worlds; but on account of the evangelical covenant established by the merit of this death with the whole human race, and of the divine ordination depending upon this covenant, according to which remission of sins and eternal life is, on account of the merits of Christ having died, declared to be

114  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism exhibited before whoever will believe, under the possible condition of faith [possibili fidei conditione].59

Davenant apologized for the prolixity of the thesis (“If it is a little wordy [prolixior], I apologize”)60 and so divided the thesis into three parts, explaining the more controversial clauses of each part. The first part argued for an ordained sufficiency over and against what Davenant terms a “mere” or “bare” sufficiency. Given the importance of this proposition, and Davenant’s distinction between a mere and an ordained sufficiency, some extended explanation is in order. Here is how Davenant restates the first part of his thesis: “The mere sufficiency of the death of Christ, which is estimated only from the intrinsic value of this ransom price [lutri] apart from that ordained sufficiency which arises from the intention and act of offering, is not a sufficient basis upon which [non eo valet ut] . . . Christ may be truly said to have died for all human beings sufficiently.”61 Davenant recognized that all orthodox theologians—​including the Reformed—​affirmed that the death of Christ was of such value that it was more than sufficient to expiate the sins of all. For example, in their suffrage the Hessian delegates at Dordt claimed “the payment price [λύτρον] is in itself [in se] more than sufficient to expiate the sins of each and every human being (even if there were a thousand worlds).”62 Accordingly, Piscator astutely noted that the question regarding sufficiency was not “whether the death of Christ is of such great value that it was sufficient to expiate the sins of all,” which he did not deny. Rather, it was “whether Christ sufficiently died for all.”63 A mere sufficiency, when grammatically modifying “the price of redemption,” denotes only “the equality of one thing to another or to the demands of him who has power over the captive.”64 Davenant uses a pecuniary illustration to explain his point. He supposed a debtor in jail and a man who has in his possession the money required for the debtor’s release. On account of the equality of money required for the debtor’s release being in the possession of the other man, that money may rightly be called “sufficient to pay the debt.”65 But its sufficiency is clearly grounded on the value of the possessor’s bank account, not on any act of offering. In other words, in the illustration, the sufficiency of the price is grounded solely on the equality of value between debt owed and money had—​a mere sufficiency—​not on whether the possessor willed to offer his money on behalf of the debtor. In contrast, Davenant uses a similar illustration to advance his explanation:

John Davenant on the Extent of Christ’s Atoning Work  115 For the same reason, if many persons should be capitally condemned for the crime of high treason, and the king himself against whom this crime was committed should agree that he would be reconciled to all for whom his son should think fit to suffer death: then now the death of the son according to the agreement [ex pacto] is appointed to be a sufficient payment price [λύτρον] for redeeming all those for whom it should be offered. But if there should be any for whom that ransom should not be offered, as to those it has only a mere sufficiency, which is supposed from the value of the thing considered in itself and not that which is understood from the act of offering.66

Davenant observes from this illustration that although considered “in itself ” (in se) and “from its intrinsic worth” (ex interno suo valore), such a payment price is equal or even a superabundant price, yet without “the intention and act of offering for certain persons,” “it still effected nothing for the liberation of the aformentioned persons.”67 An ordained sufficiency, on the other hand, presumes not only that a payment price is “equivalent to or superior in value to a thing redeemed” but also “some wish to offer or actual offering” for that thing.68 So, again, Davenant illustrates: Thus a thousand talents hidden away in the treasury of a prince are said to be a sufficient payment price [λύτρον] to redeem ten citizens taken captive by an enemy; but if there is not added an intention [animus] and act of offering and giving these talents for those captives, or for some of them, then a mere, and not an ordained, sufficiency of the thing is supposed as to those persons for whom it is not given. But if you add the act and intention offering them for the liberation of certain persons, then the ordained sufficiency is asserted as to them alone.69

Moreover, this ordained sufficiency can be either absolute or conditional. Applied to the above illustration, the sufficiency is absolute if, when the act of offering is completed, the captives are immediately liberated. It is conditional if the deliverance is suspended on some further condition to be performed. Of course, when Davenant says that Christ died for all sufficiently, he understands the sufficiency to be a conditional ordained sufficiency, because the death of Christ does not immediately liberate any, except on condition of faith (at least with regard to adults).

116  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism As previously noted, both the Contra-​Remonstrants at The Hague as well as some of the delegations at Dordt argued both that Christ died for the elect alone and that he died for all sufficiently or that his death was sufficient for all. The Nassau delegation grounded the idea of Christ dying for all on a mere sufficiency: “When Christ is said to have died for all, this may be understood of the sufficiency of his merit, or the greatness of the price.”70 With this particular view in mind, Davenant denies “that this sufficiency of the death of Christ for reconciling all can be rightly formed from the mere sufficiency of the thing offered unless there be added the ordained sufficiency from the act of offering.”71 Davenant does not think that a mere sufficiency grounds the redeemability of all human beings, as the Contra-​Remonstrants position seemed to argue. The status quaestionis, as Davenant saw it, was as follows: Indeed, granting that sufficiency of the death of Christ in itself for the redemption of a thousand worlds, and also granting that the efficacy of this death is absolutely and infallibly destined not to all but for certain persons to actually be delivered, yet it still remains a matter of controversy whether the death of Christ, understood to have an intrinsic sufficiency for the redemption of all under this hypothesis, “If God had willed to offer and pay that payment price [λύτρον] for all,” had not also joined to it an ordination of God, according to which this payment price [λύτρον], sufficient in itself, was actually offered for all, and from thence is applicable and to be applied for salvation to all if they should be willing to obey the aforesaid ordination and subject themselves to it.72

Put another way, the question was whether there was an ordained sufficiency attached to the death of Christ, such that all might actually be redeemed if they fulfill the conditions of the evangelical covenant. Davenant employs four arguments to show that there is, in fact, an ordained sufficiency for all joined to the mere sufficiency of Christ’s death. First, Davenant observes that in the language of Christ dying for all sufficiently, the language of “dying for all” implies an “intention and act of offering accomplished as to the persons.”73 Davenant claimed that just because the ransom price paid by Christ is more than sufficient to expiate the sins of all, it does not follow that Christ’s death was “sufficiently offered for those, who, in the very act of offering, are excluded.”74 Ironically, Davenant deemed most consistent those Reformed theologians such as Piscator, who, by explicitly denying that Christ was offered up for any but the elect, rejected the

John Davenant on the Extent of Christ’s Atoning Work  117 Lombardian formula’s affirmation that Christ died sufficiently for all. The Contra-​Remonstrant Franciscus Gomarus was another Reformed theologian who agreed with Davenant’s connection between for whom Christ died and an ordained sufficiency, though he, like Piscator, denied such a sufficiency. Gomarus, after rhetorically asking whether any theologian denies that the price of Christ’s death is infinitely able to suffice for redemption of a thousand worlds and more, remarked that, nevertheless, “it does not follow that the price of Christ’s death was paid by him for each and every human being, even the reprobate.”75 For, to say that Christ paid for each and every human being entails “not only its infinite potentiality [infinita potentia], but also a will and destined end.”76 In other words, to claim that Christ died for any person—​sufficiently or otherwise—​one must first include what Davenant calls an ordained sufficiency. Second, Davenant argued that the Lombardian formula teaches an ordained sufficiency. Davenant believed Reformed theologians who affirmed that Christ died for all sufficiently, while simultaneously denying any ordained sufficiency, wished to, proverbially, have their cake and eat it too: [To affirm the Lombardian formula] implies a real contradiction in those who [also] admit a bare sufficiency of his death as to all, and deny its universal ordination to procure salvation for all human beings. They are bound, therefore, to explode this distinction, which has been until now approved by the orthodox, or to acknowledge with us the ordained sufficiency of the death of Christ for the deliverance of all.77

In Davenant’s judgment, many Reformed theologians desired to claim the teaching of the traditional Lombardian formula while denying its substance. Also on this point, Davenant’s reading of the Lombardian formula was consistent with those Reformed theologians who most strenuously denied the proposition that Christ died for all, such as Piscator.78 Speaking of the language of the Lombardian formula, Davenant says that the former part of the formula denotes that “Christ died or was offered as a sacrifice to God the Father sufficiently for” both elect and nonelect.79 In fact, that is the whole point of the formula: to denote in what way Christ died for all and in what way he died for the elect. Davenant rhetorically asks, “If Christ had no intention at all of offering himself up except for the predestinated alone, then what need is there for the other word, ‘effectually’?”80 In Davenant’s interpretation, the two adverbs—​“sufficiently” and “effectually”—​modify the mode of

118  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism oblation (modus oblationis). Indeed, if one denies that the two adverbs modify the mode of oblation, then one cannot appeal to the original wording of the Lombardian formula against the reading of the Remonstrants, as Davenant actually does (see below, 5.4.1). If the adverbs “sufficiently” and “effectually” modify the mode of oblation (i.e., how Christ died for all or the elect), then the Remonstrants could not affirm the latter part of the Lombardian formula because they believe that Christ died (according to the mode of oblation) equally for all. However, if one changes the adverbs to adjectives, modifying Christ’s death, then the Remonstrants could affirm that Christ’s death is efficacious for the elect. After all, the Remonstrants affirmed that Christ’s death ultimately benefits only persevering believers (i.e., the elect). Davenant’s third argument, a line of argument for ordained sufficiency he was especially fond of, compared the relation of Christ’s death to the fallen angels and the nonelect. As noted in c­hapter 3, when pressed by the Remonstrants to explain exactly how Christ’s death was related to the reprobate and the fallen angels, the Contra-​Remonstrants at the Hague Conference and Davenant’s fellow Englishman William Ames argued (or, perhaps, conceded) that Christ died for the nonelect in a way that he did not die for the fallen angels. Ames, whom Davenant quotes, writes that “the sufficiency of [Christ’s] death does not refer in the same way to reprobate mankind as to devils. . . . He paid a sufficient payment price [lytron] for all human beings whosoever, if only they would embrace it, but not for devils.”81 Davenant presses on Ames’s logic, noting that, according to this view, the death of Christ is so paid that even if the devils were to believe, they could not be saved by the death of Christ. In Davenant’s theological scheme, what is missing for the fallen angels is an ordained sufficiency—​the death of Christ was not offered for them. Hence, “the death of Christ is understood to be sufficient for all human beings in the same sense as it is rightly denied to be sufficient for the fallen angels”—​by an ordained sufficiency.82 At first glance, it may appear that Davenant left out an important element in Ames’s argument.83 For Ames, what made the death of Christ sufficient for the reprobate but not for the fallen angels was not an ordained sufficiency, but rather Christ’s assumption of a human nature rather than an angelic nature. Ames denies even the mere sufficiency of the death of Christ for the fallen angels. In contrast, however, Davenant argues that there is a mere sufficiency between the work of Christ and the fallen angels: the death of Christ “had in itself, and by its own intrinsic price, not only a sufficiency, but an infinite superabundance, even if there should be placed in the other scale the sins

John Davenant on the Extent of Christ’s Atoning Work  119 not only of all mankind, but even the angels.”84 Ames, however, disagreed with such thinking using this syllogism: a thing “is not sufficient which is not befitting, apt, and suitable [ἵκανον, aptum, ac idoneum]. But a great part of the aptitude in Christ taking away the sins of mankind was in his assuming the similitude of our sinful flesh.” Therefore, “his death was not sufficient to take away the sins of the wicked angels.”85 As Ames’s logic goes, the fallen angels could not be redeemed by the death of Christ because Christ did not take upon himself an angelic nature. In contrast, humans can be redeemed precisely because the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature. For Ames, then, redeemability as well as a mere sufficiency is grounded in the similitude of natures, not in an ordained sufficiency. Davenant, however, did not ultimately overlook this part of Ames’s argument; he deemed it incoherent. First, Davenant insisted that the notion of Christ suffering sufficiently for human beings cannot be simply grounded upon his assumption of a human nature, but requires both a mere sufficiency and an ordained sufficiency. Moreover, the death of Christ, even though Christ did not assume their nature, must be said to have a mere sufficiency relative to the fallen angels: [A]‌lthough there was not that similitude of nature between Christ and angels which there was between Christ and human beings, yet this could not prevent that the payment price [λύτρον] paid by Christ, that is, the blood of God [sanguis Dei], was in itself and on account of its own value also most sufficient to take away the sins of angels. For what guilt of any creature can be so great that the blood-​shedding of God [effusus sanguis Dei] could not suffice for its expiation, which is of infinite value from the dignity of the divine person? And therefore, notwithstanding the dissimilitude of human nature, if God had deemed to grant this right in the death of Christ to angels, it would also be applicable for the redemption of angels.86

In other words, nothing hinders the nature of Christ’s work to be applicable to the fallen angels for their reconciliation except that his work was not ordained for them, i.e., there was no ordained sufficiency. Indeed, Davenant observed that many, if not most, Reformed theologians, along with many church Fathers, argued that Christ the mediator, notwithstanding the fact that he did not assume an angelic nature, merited grace for those angels who did not fall. Christ actually had a mediatorial role with

120  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism regard to the non-​fallen angelic host: “Christ, notwithstanding the dissimilitude of nature, is a sufficient, fit, and suitable head to communicate grace even to angels; accordingly, it is asserted by the most learned Divines, that Christ merited the gifts of grace and glory for the good angels.”87 It was quite common to argue that the gift of perseverance by which the holy angels continued in their holiness was merited by the work of Christ. According to Antonius Walaeus (1573–​1639), longtime professor of theology at Leiden and Davenant’s fellow delegate at the Synod of Dordt, this is not only the position of Augustine, Chrysostom, and other church Fathers, but also that of Calvin, Bucer, and Junius.88 These theologians distinguished between Christ’s mediatorial work as an act of reconciliation/​redemption and as a work of conservation. The former pertained to human beings alone, but the latter included the angels. Walaeus explains and defends the position this way: There is a debate among ancient and recent orthodox writers whether the angels were in need of a Mediator for the preservation of their original state. We readily concur with the affirmative position (which has very weighty authors), because, on the one hand, in Scripture Christ alone is called the Son in whom the Father, namely by himself, was well pleased; and because, on the other hand, Christ specifically is called the prince and head of angels. And finally, we concur because although the angels had no sin from which they needed to be redeemed, nevertheless, even in them would God’s justice find something lacking for granting the reward of eternal life to them, if He would compare them with himself, and would take notice of them as they are in and of themselves alone, as appears from Job 4:18 and 15:15. To say nothing now about those passages in Ephesians 1:10 and Colossians 1:20, which admittedly are explained by others (but without providing a parallel of similar wording elsewhere) as referring only to the souls that were dwelling in heaven at the time of Christ’s death.89

Davenant, moving from the premise that Christ’s mediatorial work does have a relation to the angels, argues that notwithstanding the fact that Jesus Christ did not take on an angelic nature, had God willed the work of Christ to be offered on behalf of the fallen angels (i.e., introducing an ordained sufficiency), then they could be redeemed by the person and work of Jesus Christ. Yet, in view of his broader argument, Davenant believes that all fallen and living human beings are redeemable on account of Christ’s death precisely in

John Davenant on the Extent of Christ’s Atoning Work  121 the same way that all the fallen angels are not redeemable, because, according to God’s will and decree, Christ was sent to redeem only human beings, not angels. There is lacking an ordained sufficiency in Christ’s death for the angels. Accordingly, while the value of Christ’s death is simply (i.e., necessarily) and intrinsically infinite by virtue of Christ’s divine nature (contra Scotus), its applicability to any being (e.g., angelic, human, believing, unbelieving) is grounded solely on God’s will (ut Scotus).90 Davenant begins his final argument by citing Piscator as saying that the Lombardian formula assumes what Davenant calls an ordained sufficiency. He also criticizes those theologians who appear to affirm an ordained sufficiency by speaking of God’s will or intention in making Christ’s death sufficient for all in terms of its value, but actually do not affirm an ordained sufficiency. Some Reformed theologians, such as Ames, were willing to say that God “willed that [Christ’s death] be sufficient for all” in order to defend the language of Christ dying for all in the Lombardian formula.91 John Owen, writing around the same time that De Morte Christi was posthumously published, similarly affirmed that if the Lombardian formula intended to claim simply that “Christ intended to lay down a price which should be sufficient for [each and every one’s] redemption,” then he could affirm it.92 Davenant observes, however, that because Christ’s death is infinitely valuable in itself, there is no need of any additional ordination to make it valuable.93 In other words, the mere sufficiency of Christ’s death needs no ordination for it to be infinitely valuable. In fact, Davenant cites Ames’s own language to this effect: “Intrinsic sufficiency is a certain power and fitness of a thing, not flowing from an extrinsic ordination or act of determining it as such [non fluit ab extrinseco ordinantis vel dirigentis actu].”94 Ames even said “it is absurd to value the sufficiency of some price or remedy from the purpose [voluntate] of the giving or paying it.”95 In which case, according to Davenant, “there is not required, in order to constitute it as such, an extrinsic act of intending this sufficiency.”96 Davenant hoped that this sort of ordination language found among the Reformed would be deemed superfluous both to the status quaestionis (i.e., whether there is in Christ’s death an ordained sufficiency for all) and theologically (whether the intrinsic sufficiency of Christ’s death needs an ordination to that effect). The blood of God is, in itself, infinitely valuable without needing any ordination for it to have such a value. Davenant completed his defense of the necessity of an ordained sufficiency in order to affirm the Lombardian language of “Christ dying for all” thus:

122  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism If I should say that the death of Christ is a sufficient payment price [λύτρον] for all, there is a true basis [fundamentum] in the act [re] itself for saying this, namely, in the dignity of the person dying. But if I should say that Christ died or was offered on the altar of the cross (which are equivalent)97 for all sufficiently, there is now no basis upon which the truth of this saying can stand unless I assert, first, that Christ suffered and was offered for all, and then add the sufficiency of this suffering for all, on account of the dignity of the payment price [λύτρον].98

In other words, mere sufficiency, or the language that Christ’s death is a sufficient price for all, demands only the death of the God-​man, an intrinsically infinite sacrifice. But if one wishes to affirm that Christ died sufficiently for all, what is needed is both an ordained sufficiency and a mere sufficiency.

5.4  Contra the Remonstrants 5.4.1  Christ Died Effectually for the Elect Alone In De Morte Christi, Davenant attacks three areas of Remonstrant theology related to the death of Christ: (1) Christ died equally for all; (2) Christ merited prevenient grace for all by which all might believe; (3) Christ impetrated reconciliation and remission of sins for all in such a way as to bring all human beings into an initial state of grace, subsequently conditioned on either their rejection or embrace of Christ as mediator. Not all of these doctrines were held by all Remonstrants, but major proponents of Remonstrant theology could be found teaching each of them. As the Canons of Dordt make clear, the central criticism against the Remonstrants was their teaching that the discriminating factor in human salvation was human free choice rather than God’s gracious election. When applied to the death of Christ, the Remonstrants denied that God intended Christ’s work to merit the gifts of faith for Peter in contrast to Judas. As noted above, Davenant’s last thesis, found in the final chapter of De Morte Christi, takes direct aim at the Remonstrants on this point: The death of Christ, from the special intention of God the Father, who from eternity ordained and accepted that sacrifice; and of Christ, who in the fullness of time offered it to God the Father, was destined for some certain

John Davenant on the Extent of Christ’s Atoning Work  123 persons (whom the Scripture calls the elect) and for them alone so as to be effectually and infallibly applied to the obtaining of eternal life.99

This thesis is similar to the eighth article of the Second Main Point of Doctrine of the Canons of Dordt and complements the Rejection of Errors 1–​3. Davenant, as he does with each of his propositions, argues this proposition using a three-​pronged defense. First, he employs Scripture; second, he gives theological arguments using various syllogisms; and third, he draws from various testimonies in church history to corroborate the orthodoxy of his thesis. Davenant’s use of Scripture to defend this proposition is in continuity with other Reformed defenses of Christ dying for the elect.100 For example, Davenant employs the language of Jesus’s high priestly prayer in John 17 to support his contention “those whom Christ commended to the Father by a special intercession” are those for “whom he prayed with an effectual and absolute will that the merit of his death would be effectually applied to them.”101 This text was exposited in the same way by Ussher in his second letter in defense of universal redemption.102 Davenant, as is typical throughout De Morte Christi when arguing with the Remonstrants, cites not only Augustine but also both the Dominican Domingo Báñez and the Jesuit Francisco Suárez in support of his reading of Scripture; in doing so he insinuated that the Remonstrants were clearly outside the mainstream of Christian orthodoxy.103 Davenant also made various theological arguments in support of his thesis. For example, he maintained that Jeremiah 31—​the promised New Covenant—​expressed God’s will for the salvation of the elect, and so “He who by his death procured such a covenant offered his death and merit to God the Father that it would be effectually applied to some elect persons.”104 Davenant attacked the language of Grevinchovius and other Remonstrants who spoke of the sole end of Christ’s death as making human beings redeemable, even though it could have been the case that it be applied to none: “Whoever has duly considered how precious the death of the Son was in the eyes of the Father will not be able to think that the Father would have been willing to expose his Son to death without a specific purpose of effectually applying that same death to certain persons.”105 Always intent on defending the tradition bequeathed to him, Davenant argues that the latter part of the Lombardian formula—​“Christ died for all effectually”—​does not merely denote that the death of Christ is savingly

124  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism applied only to the elect, as the Remonstrants interpreted it, “as if the sense were that the death of Christ, which is sufficient for all, becomes eventually efficacious to some from the contingent act of the human will.”106 Instead, the phrase “Christ died efficaciously for the elect” denotes “a singular efficacy proceeding from the special will of him that died.”107 Davenant pointed out that even the Jesuits, such as Suárez, agreed with the Reformed regarding the interpretation of the latter part of this received distinction.108 In short, for Davenant the latter part of the Lombardian formula expressly taught that Christ intended his death infallibly brings about salvation to the elect alone. Davenant believed his thesis was the Augustinian position. To deny it was to fall into Pelagianism: We ought to reject that opinion which is either plainly the same or at least closely resembles the condemned doctrine of the Pelagians. But the opinion of those who assert that the death of Christ, as to the divine will and intention, is equally the same towards all with respect to its efficacy, and that it arises from the human will that it is eventually effectual and beneficial to some comes as near as possible to Pelagius. Instead the orthodox, having been awakened by Pelagius to an accurate consideration of this issue, have always taught, on the contrary, that the beneficial or effectual application of the merits of Christ depends upon the grace of predestination, by which faith and a good will [bona voluntas] itself is mercifully conferred upon some, though denied to others by the just judgment of God.109

Davenant culled testimonia from the ancient church, scholastics, Roman Catholics, and his fellow Reformed. He even added to the list those Reformed theologians who “do not deny that Christ suffered for all, yet at the same time profess that he redeemed the elect by his death in some special manner.”110 He specifically cited Martin Bucer, Wolfgang Musculus, John Calvin, and Girolamo Zanchi, and ended his testimonia quoting the Remonstrant Conrad Vorstius, who appears to grant Davenant’s position.111

5.4.2  Actual Reconciliation and Remission of Sins Conditioned on Faith and Repentance Although this denial of a special intention for Christ’s work to save the elect was the most evident and arguably the chief problem in Remonstrant

John Davenant on the Extent of Christ’s Atoning Work  125 theology as far as Davenant and the rest of the Reformed were concerned, he did not see it as the only mistake the Remonstrants made with regard to the death of Christ. Chapters 5 and 6 of De Morte Christi also attacked the Remonstrants. Chapter 5’s thesis maintained: The death or passion of Christ, as the universal cause of the salvation of mankind, by the act of its oblation, has so far rendered God the Father pacified and reconciled to the human race that he can now be truly said to be ready to receive into favor any human being whosoever as soon as he or she will believe in Christ. Nevertheless, the aforesaid death of Christ does not place any one, at least any adult, in a state of grace, of actual reconciliation, or of salvation, before he or she believes.112

There are two main parts to this thesis. First, there is the positive affirmation that the death of Christ has made all human beings reconcilable with God. This part of Davenant’s thesis was precisely the point initially rejected by the Contra-​Remonstrants in their first committee draft of the Canons and will be dealt with in more detail below. The latter part of this thesis was written in response to “those who assert that all human beings are received into a state of grace and salvation by the merit of the passion of Christ, and against those who think that the elect at the very least were from eternity reconciled, justified, and had their sins pardoned.”113 In other words, the thesis denied actual universal reconciliation and eternal justification. Although the latter position was apparently beginning to emerge among the Reformed, nevertheless Davenant’s thesis is largely directed at the Remonstrants, particularly those following Arminius himself, along with Huber and Pucci.114 Again, against many of the Contra-​ Remonstrant interpretations of the Remonstrants, Davenant did not think that the majority of the Remonstrants taught that all human beings are actually brought into a state of grace and salvation by Christ’s death.115 As noted in ­chapter 2 of this study, Davenant believed, along with Augustine and Prosper, that baptized infants are absolved from original guilt and brought into a state of reconciliation with God. As Davenant explains, “Because they cannot by faith apply the blood of Christ to cleanse their souls, the merciful God as it were sprinkles and quickens their souls with the blood of Christ by the secret operation of his own Spirit.”116 Davenant cites Aquinas in support of his view of infant salvation.117 Nevertheless, as

126  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism Davenant’s thesis states, adults are not reconciled by the work of Christ except by exercising faith and repentance. Against the Remonstrant position, Davenant, following his typical polemical method, begins with arguments from Scripture. He observes that Scripture consistently presents the application of the benefits of Christ’s death as hinging on faith and repentance, the instruments or conditions by which redemption is applied (cf. 1 Jn. 1:9). Moreover, the Scriptures, even presupposing Christ’s death, speak of unbelievers, including the elect, as being under God’s wrath (cf. Eph. 2:11–​13). Davenant also employs various theological arguments in support of his thesis. For instance, appealing to the philosophical dictum that every action is effected by some contact (omnis actio est per aliquem contactum), he contends that only union with Christ by faith brings about the transfusion (as it were) of Christ’s saving virtue.118 In his fourth theological argument, Davenant looks to Duns Scotus’s famous thesis that the merit of Christ is a benefit to us only insofar as it is accepted by God.119 Because Christ’s death “was not so accepted that he should reconcile anyone before faith,” therefore God “does not actually justify or reconcile to [himself] any but those who repent and believe.”120 The applicability of Christ’s death and the conditions for that applicability to any being (e.g., angelic, human, believing, unbelieving) are grounded solely on God’s will. Davenant does not leave the defense of his thesis without appealing to the church Fathers for support. He cites Ambrose, Augustine (the actual citation is from Prosper), Theodoret, and Bede the Venerable.121 Finally, Davenant strengthens his defense by responding to the objections against his own position made by the Lutheran Huber. Huber argued that to deny universal reconciliation was to deny the sufficiency of Christ’s death and a universal satisfaction for sins. Davenant, however, insisted that the application of the merit of Christ’s death was conditioned upon faith and repentance.

5.4.3  No Obligation to Provide the Means of Application to All The final pillar of the Remonstrant position on Christ’s death that Davenant attacked was their belief in a universal grace merited by Christ’s death. Davenant begins his c­ hapter 6 thesis noting that he has in mind those who “extend this universal efficacy of the death of Christ, which we defend, farther than the truth of the thing permits.”122 Davenant observes that there are

John Davenant on the Extent of Christ’s Atoning Work  127 theologians who infer from the statement “Christ died for all” that God’s justice and goodness demands he administer the means of producing faith for all. For these theologians, “there are certain remnants of spiritual life in all human beings, namely, some knowledge of God in the intellect, some desire after the knowledge of what is good in the affections, which natural gifts, if a person makes right use of them, God will give that person more grace and bestow upon him saving faith.”123 In fact, Aquinas, Davenant admits, appeared to lean in this direction.124 However, in this chapter, Davenant ultimately has in mind not the Thomists but the Remonstrants. Davenant’s thesis is as follows: “With the death of Christ presupposed as applicable to all human beings on condition of faith, it is consistent with the goodness and justice of God to supply or to deny, either to nations or to individuals, the means of application, and that according to the good pleasure of his own will, not according to the disparity of human wills.”125 Davenant’s interlocutors (he names the Remonstrants Corvinus and Arminius) affirmed three theses: (1) that God is bound by a fixed law to impart a talent (talentum) of grace to those who use the talent of nature well; (2) that all pagans are able to use this talent of nature well by their own free will; (3) that if a person uses this natural talent well, God will lead the sinner to a saving knowledge of Christ; if not, the sinner is deservedly deprived of the saving knowledge of Christ.126 In the various theological arguments for his thesis, Davenant appeals to both Roman Catholics and the orthodox Fathers, especially the Augustinians, for his belief that the discriminating factor in why God’s grace comes to some human beings rather than to others is due not to our actions but to God’s will of good pleasure. Davenant argues, citing Augustine and the Dominican Diego Álvarez, that there is no such law by which God is bound to give grace to those who use nature rightly. Indeed, Álvarez taught that “God never established a law concerning the giving of the helps of prevenient grace to those who do all that is in their power from the faculty of nature alone, nor did Christ the Lord by his death merit, or desire to merit, there to be such a law.”127 Moreover, Davenant admits that while “some sparks of natural light” remain in fallen human beings, they are not able to rightly use such light.128 Finally, Davenant alleged that both experience and Scripture teach that the gospel has often come to those who have abused the light of nature most. Indeed, Davenant asked, “Who does not know that the philosophers, Socrates, Plato, and Xenophon, and the Romans, Fabricius, Scipio, and Cato made a good use of the light of

128  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism nature beyond other people? Yet none of these on that account became a partaker of the grace of the gospel.”129 Of note, Davenant makes a few key distinctions with regard to the term “grace.” When he speaks of the grace of Christ, it is important to realize that he does not usually have in mind God’s general benevolence.130 Davenant concedes that the term “grace” can denote “whatever is graciously granted by God to human beings.”131 This includes both external and internal benefits wherein God testifies to his deity in nature and inwardly restrains the sin of sinners and causes them to do good.132 This grace may well be termed universal. However, the grace of Christ more properly understood refers to what Davenant identifies as internal and external means (or instruments) of salvation. Among the internal means of salvation are those “immediate means of salvation” (media salutis immediata) such as “repentance, faith, regeneration, and sanctification” by which a person is “placed in a state of spiritual life and salvation, and in the actual participation of the death and merits of Christ.”133 Davenant also distinguished between those internal means of salvation that “belong only to human beings who are ingrafted into Christ and reconciled to God” and those “which serve to produce and promote it.”134 The latter would include those inward, nonnecessarily saving benefits—​such as the enlightening of the mind and the tasting of the heavenly gift mentioned in Hebrews 6—​which are directly tied to the preaching of the gospel and administration of the sacraments within the visible church.135 Accordingly, the terms “grace of Christ” (gratia Christi) and “saving grace” (gratia salutifera) referenced in the Scriptures and used by the Augustinians often denoted “those benefits and supernatural gifts” that “are directly ordained for the obtaining of salvation through Christ, though not infallibly so.”136 The external means of salvation are the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments by which the internal means of salvation are conferred. Hence, Prosper of Aquitaine did not object to the thesis “that all human beings are not called to grace,” claiming that “they live without grace” who live without the preaching of the gospel.137 Given that all the internal means of salvation depend upon the external means of salvation, which are not universally given, it follows that the grace of Christ, whether considered internally or externally, cannot be regarded as universal. One of Davenant’s more important arguments for his thesis moves from fact to right (a facto ad ius).138 (Fact): it is the case that God has limited his saving grace to the realm of the visible church; (right): this is God’s right.

John Davenant on the Extent of Christ’s Atoning Work  129 (Fact): God does not make the gospel available to all; (right): it is God’s right to do that. Various objections were made by the Remonstrants to this argument, appealing, e.g., to the will of the preachers or the will of those to whom the gospel could be preached. Corvinus argued that the reason the gospel does not go to all nations is because “those who are sent refuse to go,” not that God has willed it not to go to all.139 Further, Corvinus and Gerardus Vossius suggested that perhaps the gospel does not come to some because of the sins of their forefathers or their own sins.140 Davenant identifies the central argument of the Remonstrants: “They do not confine the difference of the calling of the gospel and saving grace being denied or granted to the mere will of God, but to various conditions or dispositions considered on the part of human beings.”141 Because Davenant assumed the doctrine of total inability taught in the Third Main Doctrine of the Canons of Dordt, it follows that God does not give grace on the basis of whether a person stands as an impediment to such grace: “How can it be understood that to the pagans, who are in the state of a corrupt nature, the grace of the gospel is to be given on this condition as it were, ‘if they are no obstacle to grace,’ seeing that so long as they are destitute of grace, they necessarily resist it by the necessity indeed of a depraved disposition and habit?”142 Davenant concludes the defense of his thesis with nearly seven pages (in small-​print Latin!) of testimony from the Augustinians in support of his thesis.143 He then lays out the views of the Pelagians and semi-​Pelagians and concludes by showing how those who disown Pelagianism, such as the Remonstrants and Roman Catholics, “who teach that grace is efficacious through the consent of the human will,” actually agree with the “ancient Pelagians and semi-​Pelagians,” although the “sounder Papists” (sanioribus papistis) agree with Davenant.144 Davenant’s attack against the notion of universal grace is also found in his tract entitled De Gallicana controversia sententia . . . de gratiosa & salutari Dei erga homines peccatores voluntate, a work responding to the French Reformed churches’ inquiry regarding John Cameron’s theology.145 Sometime after the death of Cameron, Davenant responded to a request from the French Reformed churches asking him to render judgment on Cameron’s theological doctrines relating to the gracious and salvific will of God toward human sinners.146 Davenant’s critique of Cameron (via what was related to him about Cameron’s position) touches on the same topic as Davenant’s thesis regarding the limitation of God’s grace according to his good pleasure. Cameron, in the letter to which Davenant responds, is said to teach (among other things) that “God, by his universal grace grounded upon

130  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism his death, which was sufficient in itself, and by an invitation and calling suitable to repentance, although in different ways, gives to all individually that they may be saved if they will.”147 As he does in De Morte Christi, Davenant responds to this Cameronian manner of speech noting that, among the scholastics, the grace of Christ does not typically mean God’s general benevolence. The grace of Christ usually refers to the saving grace of Christ as it is offered in the preaching of the gospel. Davenant wonders how Cameron could possibly understand this saving grace as universal, being granted to all human beings, seeing that the knowledge of the gospel is certainly not universal.

5.5  Conclusion With perhaps the exception of Richard Baxter’s Universal Redemption, which was intentionally kept from being published—​though it was published posthumously—​because Baxter thought Davenant’s treatise (along with John Daillé’s) was sufficient for the task, De Morte Christi was the most significant work published in defense of English hypothetical universalism.148 Clearly building upon various arguments made by all sides of the debate, Davenant both systematizes the hypothetical universalist position, while carefully outlining areas of agreement and disagreement among the various positions. He also introduces or standardizes certain scholastic distinctions related to the sufficiency of Christ’s death and the twofold ordination of Christ’s death. At every point, it seems, Davenant’s treatise is a direct result of the polemical debates occurring either at Dordt or in the debates leading up to Dordt among the Remonstrants, Lutherans, and Reformed. Davenant attempted to prove that his hypothetical universalism was biblical, theologically coherent, and catholic by employing biblical exegesis, theological argumentation, and the citation of Roman Catholic, Reformed, and pre-​Reformation authorities. He did, in fact, offer a via media of sorts, but his argument was not the softening of a tradition, as Jonathan Moore’s account of English hypothetical universalism suggested. Rather, Davenant’s via media was a defense against what he perceived to be a hardening, or better, a modification of the Reformed tradition by its newfangled interpretation and/​or denial of the former part of the Lombardian formula. On the other hand, Davenant was also concerned—​a concern often overlooked by interpreters

John Davenant on the Extent of Christ’s Atoning Work  131 of hypothetical universalism—​to defend the notion that Christ died for the elect in a way that he did not die for the nonelect. Davenant’s via media, at least as he conceived of it, was the theology of the Lombardian formula, standing between those who denied it either implicitly or explicitly, whether that be the Remonstrants or some of the Reformed.

6 John Davenant’s Covenant Theology 6.1  Introduction In his influential essays on federal theology in the early modern period, which were based primarily on his reading of early modern Scottish theology, James B. Torrance claimed that the rise of federal theology limited Christ’s atoning work to the elect alone.1 Similarly, David Lachman suggested that federal theology led to an emphasis on the particular aspect of Christ’s atoning work related to the elect.2 Moreover, some scholars, following the work of Perry Miller and Heinrich Heppe, have tended to suggest two separate Reformed traditions, split between an emphasis on predestination on the one hand, represented by the Genevan tradition, and on the other hand, an emphasis on the conditional aspect of the covenant idea, represented by the Rhineland Reformed tradition.3 Some historians even contend that while the former tradition was a theology of grace, the latter tended in a legalistic direction.4 Historians such as Lyle Bierma have rightly challenged this dichotomizing of the Reformed tradition.5 Arguably, John Davenant’s theology defies the dividing of the Reformed tradition between a predestination-​oriented theology and a federal theology. Like that of many Reformed theologians of his period, Davenant’s theology bears both strong predestinarian marks and a well-​structured covenant theology, having both absolute and conditional aspects. The Scottish theologian George Hill described Davenant’s Animadversions against the Arminian Samuel Hoard as “one of the ablest defences of the Calvinistic system of predestination.”6 At the same time, one of the chief theological presuppositions of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism is his underlying covenant theology, especially the conditional, evangelical covenant made universally with all mankind. Though Davenant’s covenant theology has never been studied in great detail, Jonathan Moore’s recent study of John Preston explores the ways in which Davenant’s covenant theology served his hypothetical universalism.

John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism. Michael J. Lynch, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197555149.003.0006

John Davenant’s Covenant Theology  133 In step with earlier scholarship on the rise of federalism, Moore argues that Davenant’s covenant theology was a “considerable modification” to the Elizabethean Reformed soteriology bequeathed to him.7 As argued in this chapter, Moore’s thesis fails at this point as he does not look carefully at the broader Reformed tradition to see whether antecedents of Davenant’s theology can be found there. This chapter will examine the roots of Davenant’s covenant theology with the aim of demonstrating that it is neither novel nor any more legalistic than the covenant theology of other theologians found within the “Elizabethean” settlement. Comparing Davenant’s covenant theology with that of William Perkins will support our thesis. Moreover, an exposition of Davenant’s covenant theology will also serve to better explain how his covenant theology supports, rather than undermines, his hypothetical universalism.

6.2  Covenant in John Davenant’s Theology Before discussing Davenant’s two basic covenants, it will be helpful to make some brief remarks about terminology. First, the Latin terms most often translated in English as “covenant,” foedus and pactum, appear to function interchangeably for Davenant. Hence, he will speak of an evangelical pactum and an evangelical foedus while defining and using such language in the same way, often referring to a foedus as a pactum and vice versa.8 Second, for Davenant, a covenant at its most basic level is promissory. Thus, the terms “promise” and “covenant” are intimately bound together, and also often used interchangeably.9 All divine covenants promise something; a divine covenant is a divine promise. Accordingly, Davenant says, “A divine promise is nothing other than a statement of some benefit to be conferred on a human being, either absolutely, or upon the condition of some work to be performed by a person.”10 Finally, other terms seem to function metonymically for the term “covenant,” such as the terms “decree” and “ordination.” For example, Davenant summarizes the universal covenant as a “voluntary ordination of God, by which he has ratified, as to any human being whatsoever, that the antecedent being true of that person [“if you shall believe”], the consequence is so likewise [“you shall be saved”].”11

134  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism

6.2.1  Davenant and the Covenant of Works Davenant’s covenant theology is at the most basic level a two-​covenant scheme. He often contrasts what he most often terms the “covenant of works” (foedus operum), “legal covenant” (pactum legale), or “covenant of nature” (foedus naturae) with the “evangelical covenant” (pactum evangelicum) or “covenant of grace” (foedus gratiae). In both his De Justitia Habituali et Actuali and De Morte Christi, he distinguishes the former covenant, the foedus naturae, with the latter, the foedus gratiae, as involving two ways of obtaining eternal life: The promise of eternal life according to the legal covenant [pactum legale], or the covenant of works [foedus operum], is so truly conditional that it depends upon the perfect and rigid observance of the Law; and our Savior Christ wisely sent the one who supposed that he could merit eternal life by his good deeds back to that covenant. But the promise of eternal life according to the evangelical covenant [pactum evangelicum] and covenant of grace [foedus gratiae] depends upon the condition of faith; and all those who, feeling their infirmity and sickness, acknowledge themselves unequal to the keeping of the divine law or meriting their salvation are directed to this covenant.12

These two ways of eternal life find their redemptive-​ historical instantiations in the covenant made with Adam and his posterity and the covenant of grace founded upon the blood of Christ. In the covenant of nature made with Adam, “salvation was procurable by Adam and all his posterity under the condition of obedience,” whereas in the covenant of grace, “salvation is also understood to be procurable by all human beings under the condition published in the gospel, that is, by faith in this Mediator, who has made satisfaction for the sins of the human race.”13 The covenant of works includes a legal command, “Do this and you shall live,” while the covenant of grace proclaims, “Believe and you shall live,” corresponding to Davenant’s understanding of Paul in Galatians 3.14 Both covenants are universal (i.e., common to all) and conditional and promise eternal life. Davenant makes clear that Adam plays the role of covenant head in a way similar to Christ’s headship.15 Adam, in the garden, was given all the sufficient grace needed to obey.16 The command to retain the original holiness and righteousness given to Adam at creation entails that all human beings

John Davenant’s Covenant Theology  135 are also bound to the preservation of righteousness.17 Mere preservation of righteousness is not Adam’s only attainable benefit in Davenant’s conception of the covenant of works. Adam, had he obeyed God in his prelapsarian state, would have obtained “grace and eternal life.”18 Instead, however, Adam, who bore in his person all his posterity—​viz., all human beings—​by his “voluntary transgression” imputed both original sin and caused “hereditary corruption” to all.19 Davenant says, “Original sin has its origin neither from God our creator nor from the principles of our pure and upright nature, but from the voluntary sin of our first parents.”20 Davenant’s doctrine of original sin vis-​à-​ vis Adam does not seem to deviate in any way from the Thirty-​Nine Articles (cf. Art. IX). In summary then, Davenant’s prelapsarian covenant of works is most often employed in the service of explaining how all human beings are guilty of sin due to Adam’s transgression and, hence, born inherently sinful. Further, Davenant appeals to the covenant of works as a contrasting way of obtaining eternal life. In the covenant of works, God would give eternal life to all humanity because of Adam’s obedience to the law. In contrast, in the covenant of grace, all the benefits of salvation are granted on account of Christ’s mediatorial work. Though Davenant never gives a single systematic exposition of his foedus naturae, nothing about his use of the doctrine seems out of step with broader Reformed orthodoxy.21

6.2.2  Davenant, the Covenant of Grace, and the Evangelical Covenant Arguably, at the heart of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism is his desire to justify the gospel offer to the reprobate.22 Of course, this is not to say that he holds his position on merely pragmatic grounds. Nevertheless, for Davenant, a universal gospel offer demands a universal remedy. Put somewhat differently, a minister of the gospel cannot genuinely or sincerely offer Christ and his benefits to those for whom Christ did not die.23 The merit of Christ, as it regards all human beings (per an ordained sufficiency), grounds Davenant’s evangelical covenant. To get a sense of how Davenant’s evangelical covenant functions in his theology, it will be important to give a general picture of his understanding of the covenant of grace and the nature of grace itself.

136  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism According to Davenant, on account of the merit of Christ, a new covenant was established wherein, on the condition of faith, any person could attain to remission of sins and eternal life. The death of Christ made it “lawful for any person indiscriminately to ascend into heaven by believing.”24 This conditional evangelical covenant, requiring faith as the condition for eternal life, is juxtaposed to the covenant of works or legal covenant, which required works as the condition of eternal life. According to Davenant, this evangelical covenant is grounded on the work of Christ: “This agreement [pactio] itself, which promises salvation to every sinner under the condition of faith, has no foundation or confirmation anywhere else than in the blood of the Mediator.”25 Davenant appeals to Scripture texts such as Lk. 23:20, Heb. 9:22, and Rom. 3:25.26 By this covenant, God promises to every human being, whether reprobate or elect, that if they believe they will be saved. Had Judas believed and Peter not believed, the former would have been saved and the latter damned.27 In fact, God may truly be said to have willed the salvation of Judas inasmuch as he willed that Christ offer himself up for Judas’s sins in the founding of the evangelical covenant. In Davenant’s words, “God, with a general intention, wills life to all inasmuch as he willed the death of Christ to be the fountain and cause of life to each and every person, according to the tenor of the evangelical covenant.”28 The evangelical covenant is also a universal covenant made with all humanity. This universal covenant is evident considering the universality of the promise, that whosoever repents and believes will be saved, and is apparent on account of the fact that the Apostles and ministers may indiscriminately proclaim the gospel offer. Davenant illustrates this point: If some King makes an agreement [pactum] with certain persons who have been found guilty of high treason, that he will pardon them if they will humbly seek a pardon of him, it would not be lawful on account of the aforementioned agreement for any of the King’s servants to go to a prison and announce to all persons promiscuously that pardon would be obtained from the King, if they would only humbly kneel down and ask it; because this conditional agreement regards only those who are included in it by the royal clemency. Likewise, neither would it be lawful for the ministers of God to promise promiscuously to all remission and salvation on the condition of faith, unless it appeared to them beyond a doubt that this conditional covenant [pactum] was made and established with all by the will of

John Davenant’s Covenant Theology  137 God. But the Apostles did this, and we do it. Therefore, we acknowledge that this covenant [pactum] was established with each and every human being, that is, with the whole human race.29

In brief, Davenant argues that if the conditional proposition—​namely, if any human being should believe, then they would obtain remission of sins and reconciliation with God—​is true, then it logically follows that there is a universal covenant or promise between God and all human beings, one that promises salvation on condition of faith. Davenant notes the language of his nonhypothetical universalist Reformed brethren who also affirmed this conditional offer of salvation for all human beings, such as the Contra-​Remonstrants at the Hague Conference of 1611. They taught that there is “at present some way and method by which any unbeliever may evade the merited condemnation: namely, if they believe.”30 The Hessian delagates at Dordt similarly argued that “the word of the gospel of Jesus Christ crucified is announced indiscriminately [indiscriminatim] to elect and non-​elect, and all are commanded to believe in him with the added promise that all those who believe in him will obtain reconciliation with God and the remission of their sins.”31 Davenant also discusses this universal covenant or promise in the context of the scholastic distinction between God’s will of simple complacency and his will of good pleasure.32 The covenant is an expression of God’s will of simple complacency by which he wills all human beings to be saved according to the terms expressed in the universal covenant. Consequently, Davenant described this conditional covenant or decree as “declarative and theoretical [declarativum et doctrinale]” rather than “practical and operative [practico et operatante].”33 It decrees a conditional promise to be proclaimed, not an action on God’s part. Because of the depravity of mankind, there is, then, beyond this universal covenant, the necessity of an operative will, namely God’s decree of good pleasure, which includes the decree of predestination: “It would be wretched for us if our entire salvation depended upon this conditioned covenant [pacto], If you believe, you shall be saved, and there was not another decree of the divine good pleasure concerning the giving of faith to us, and of effectively saving us.”34 The gospel message proclaimed by a preacher proclaims the means by which any person may obtain the end of eternal life, but it is only in the absolute covenant or decree whereby God infallibly determines to grant the necessary means to the elect for the infallible obtaining of salvation.

138  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism Davenant recognized that if God wills the means of salvation to be procured for the reprobate, then God’s intention to save appears thwarted. Does this not imply that God’s will is ineffectual because of God’s universal desire to save all? Davenant responds to God’s apparent impotence by noting that God oftentimes obtains (and sometimes actually grants) the means to an end wherein the end is never attained.35 Davenant appeals to the scholastic distinction between providence and predestination employed by Aquinas.36 Providence is a general appointment of a thing toward an end (universaliter ordinationem in finem), whereas predestination represents the outcome or result of an ordering (exitum vel eventum ordinis). Predestination differs from providence in that “not everything that is ordained to an end [as in providence] reaches that end.”37 Like providence, then, the evangelical covenant is grounded upon an ordination to an end that does not infallibly obtain. God has ordained that Christ make a universal satisfaction on condition of belief, which condition being not always fulfilled, necessitates that not all are forgiven. This evangelical covenant, which displays the “freedom, mercy, and justice of God,” is made, consonant with God’s general love for mankind, between humanity and God promising the saving benefits of Christ to those who repent and believe.38 Davenant also emphasizes the fact that the condition of faith is possible for all living human beings.39 Yet he parses this claim very carefully. He does not mean that all have the inward ability apart from supernatural grace to exercise faith. Instead, all living human beings have a “passive and material power” of believing “because God may effect in any living person [viatore] that he or she should be converted and believe the gospel.”40 Moreover, this ability for God to give faith to any living human being is not only consistent with God’s absolute power, but also his ordained power.41 Davenant relies especially on the scholastic language of the Spanish Dominican Domingo Báñez. To appreciate Davenant’s point, it will be important to briefly look at how Báñez understands God’s power or ability. According to Báñez, something can be said to be possible for God in a variety of ways. First, “God is said to be able to do everything which does not imply a contradiction according to God’s absolute power [potentia absoluta].”42 As Aquinas, whom Davenant quotes, says, “Whatsoever can have the nature of being is confined among the absolutely possible things, with respect to which God is called omnipotent. But nothing is opposed to the nature of being except non-​being. Therefore, that which implies being

John Davenant’s Covenant Theology  139 and non-​being at the same time is repugnant to the idea of an absolutely possible thing, within the scope of divine omnipotence.”43 Second, Báñez notes that something may be said to be possible for God according to God’s ordinary power (potentia ordinaria). God’s ordinary power is not to be restricted only to those things that come about from the divine will and providence.44 Instead, “what is possible concerning ordinary power [potentia ordinaria] is defined [diffinitur] in connection [with] the common law given by God in general with respect to what is possible for something to happen or not happen, or with respect to the common course of natural or moral things.”45 It is in accordance with this potentia ordinaria that God can be said to be able to give any living human being faith. Such was precisely the claim made by Báñez and Duns Scotus. Scotus noted that because ordered power (potentia ordinata) is spoken of with respect to the order of universal law, not with respect to the order of right law concerning some particular, God is able to save someone whom he does not save; but one cannot say that God can save already damned Judas according to ordained power.46 Because a universal law claims that “every unrepentant sinner should be damned,” God can only be said to presently save Judas by extraordinary power or potentia absoluta.47 Still, were Judas at present alive, even though he would finally die and be condemned, he could be saved, according to God’s ordained power. Davenant makes similar distinctions.48 Davenant limits those whom God can save to the living, according to his ordained power: [B]‌ecause there is no common law promulgated by God decreeing the opposite, we ought to declare respecting any living person whatsoever [quolibet viatore] that the condition of faith and repentance is possible to him or her according to the ordinary power of God; just as, on the other hand, we rightly say, that according to God’s ordained or ordinary power [potentiam ordinatam vel ordinariam], faith and repentance are impossible to any of the damned.49

Davenant appeals to this common law by which it may be said that God is able to give faith to every living human being on account of God’s mercy, Christ’s headship, and the condition of living human beings before death. The second point regarding Christ’s headship is especially noteworthy, given the implied covenantal overtones. Davenant notes Aquinas’s distinction of Christ’s various headship(s) over all human beings. Although the

140  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism first and principal union between Christ and human beings is with those in glory, Aquinas also recognized that all human beings are potentially united to Christ insofar as they may be, while living, actually united to Christ. Something similar to this Thomistic distinction between the various levels of Christ’s headship is found in Reformed theologians such as Calvin and Vermigli.50 Although Davenant argued that this covenant is universal in its promise and that there is a sense in which we might say that all living human beings are able to believe on account of God’s power, its administration is not universal. The covenant of grace in its administration is restricted to the visible church, where one finds the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. Against the language of the Remonstrants and John Cameron, Davenant denied that a universal grace, either internally or externally, has been given or offered to all such that all are now able to believe in Christ. Not only did Davenant deny that “every person ha[s]‌in themselves an internal and proportionate natural principle for eliciting the act of true and living faith,” as the semi-​Pelagians taught, but he also denied that a “gratuitous assistance [auxilia] sufficient to produce the act of believing is given to all” on account of the death of Christ.51 As mentioned above, Davenant does affirm that “the condition of faith is possible for all,” but he does not ground this possibility on account of any “active or formal power” found in human beings.52 Though God has universally promised, on account of the death of Christ, that all who believe can be saved, God has not provided for every human being every necessary means of salvation, such as the saving knowledge of Christ the mediator.53 Again, such grace is relegated to the visible church. Jonathan Moore thinks that the very conditionality attached to Davenant’s doctrine of the new covenant makes the gospel, in his words, “a new law.”54 To be sure, Davenant sees faith and good works as necessary to the obtaining of salvation in the same way that many other Reformed theologians would affirm, yet it is misleading to characterize the conditionality of the covenant as “highly contractual” or a “legalizing” of the gospel.55 The good works that are necessary for the apprehension of eternal life are not meritorious in any sense, nor are they an expression of anything but the work of grace among the regenerate.56 Second, and more important, the conditional aspect of the covenant requiring faith and repentance is a mainstream position in early modern Reformed orthodoxy, as Andrew Woolsey’s study has made clear.57 In fact, well-​ known Elizabethean Reformed

John Davenant’s Covenant Theology  141 theologians, whom Moore implies differed with Davenant, equally affirm the conditionality of the evangelical covenant. For example, William Perkins, whom Moore treats as the paragon of Elizabethan Reformed theology, in answer to the question of why some baptized children do not attain to eternal life, answers, “The fault is not in God, who keepes his covenants, but the faults in themselves, in that they doe not keepe the condition of the covenant, to receive Christ by faith, and to repent of all their sinnes.”58 In fact, Perkins elsewhere uses the exact terminology of “legal” and “evangelical” covenant that Davenant uses, with the latter covenant being expressed conditionally, while also affirming the same relationship good works have to eternal life as expressed by Davenant.59 Perkins himself consistently speaks of the covenant of grace in conditional terms. In his very definition of the covenant of grace, Perkins maintains that it “exacts again of man, that he would by faith receive Christ, and repent of his sinnes.”60 Perkins even calls faith “a cause, or else a way of salvation.”61 As a way of salvation, faith “doth not save alone: for other vertues and works, though they be not causes, yet are they waies to eternall life as well as faith.”62 As Woolsey’s treatment of the bilateral nature of Perkins’s covenant theology makes clear, Perkins’s covenant of grace is equally conditional in precisely the same ways as Davenant’s.63 Moore’s judgment of Davenant is not dissimiliar to Perry Miller’s judgment of Perkins’s covenant theology. As noted earlier, Miller, like others in the twentieth century, maintained that Perkins’s theology, as it introduced federal or conditional elements, was a step away from the purely gracious soteriology found in John Calvin. If that were the case, Davenant and “Perkinsian” covenant theology would, after all, have something in common! Moore also gives the impression that Davenant’s evangelical covenant, with its universal scope, is an aberration in Elizabethean theology. Moore finds the roots of this evangelical covenant in Bishop John Overall, whom Moore suggests was sympathetic to Arminianism—​implying, of course, the tendency of Davenant toward Arminianism—​a tendency Moore makes explicit a few pages later.64 However, neither the conditionality, as we have already seen, nor the universal aspect of Davenant’s covenant of grace, as expressed in his notion of an evangelical covenant, is inconsistent with the broader context of Reformed orthodoxy during Davenant’s time. To the latter point, under the question of for whom the covenant of grace was ordained, the Swiss Reformed theologian Johann Jacob Grynaeus distinguished between the universal and particular aspects of the covenant of

142  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism grace.65 There are different grades of ordaining (sanctio) within the covenant of grace.66 If the ordaining of the covenant of grace is understood with respect to (1) the “sufficiency of the ransom price on behalf of all,” (2) “the calling and invitation of all people to embrace this covenant of grace,” or (3) “the universal command of faith and obedience,” then the covenant of grace certainly “is able to be extended to all human beings whatsoever.”67 Nevertheless, the covenant also has an ordination that is particular to the elect.68 The universal/​conditional and particular aspect of the covenant of grace is also apparent in Raphael Eglin’s exposition of the covenant of grace.69 The point worth emphasizing in highlighting these two contemporaries of Davenant is that although they have no apparent theological relationship to him beyond being broadly within the Reformed tradition, they also spoke of a universal aspect with regard to the covenant of grace. While it is true that at the linguistic level Perkins regularly describes the parties of the covenant of grace as God and the elect, it is not altogether clear whether there is a substantial difference between Perkins’s understanding of the administration of this covenant and Davenant’s evangelical covenant. After all, both theologians see the administration of the covenant of grace as regulated within the confines of the visible church, where the gospel is preached and the sacraments are administered. Within that administration, as we have seen, both theologians recognized the conditional nature of the promise proclaimed in the gospel. Moreover, both admit that the visible church, wherein the covenant is administered, includes both the elect and the reprobate. Likewise, both limit the participation of the saving benefits of the covenant of grace to believers. Whereas Davenant distinguishes two covenants—​a conditional covenant made with all humanity and an absolute covenant (to be discussed below), which is made with the elect alone—​ Perkins has one covenant of grace that is made with the elect, though able to be proclaimed indiscriminately to all with the saving benefits conditionally applied. Perkins can speak of someone like Judas as being a “partaker of the signes and seales of the Covenant of Grace,” even though he was a reprobate.70 The substantial difference between the two is not the bilateral aspect of the covenant, nor that the covenant may be universally proclaimed, but rather the logic undergirding Davenant’s universal covenant. Davenant grounds the universal covenant on an ordained sufficiency, whereas Perkins does not ground the gospel offer on an ordained sufficiency. Simply put, even if Davenant expresses himself in a distinctive way vis-​à-​vis English Reformed theology, his evangelical covenant as universal and conditional does not

John Davenant’s Covenant Theology  143 appear substantially different when viewed in light of other contemporary Reformed expositions of the covenant of grace. It might also be added that Davenant was fond of citing authorities well beyond the scope of Reformed orthodoxy (e.g., Rupert of Deutz) in defense of the “evangelical covenant.”71 Looking at those he cites, one gets the impression that his exposition of the evangelical covenant is sourced not simply from someone like Bishop Overall (whom Davenant never specifically cites in his discussion of this covenant), nor just from the standard Reformed luminaries, but even from broader, catholic influences.

6.2.3  Absolute Covenant Alongside this conditional evangelical covenant Davenant speaks of an absolute covenant or ordination, which infallibly ensures that Christ’s redemptive work will be applied to the elect for their eternal salvation. This covenant, like the evangelical covenant, also acquires the name of “new covenant” in Scripture, although it is different in many respects to the aforementioned evangelical covenant. First, this absolute covenant is not made between God and humanity, but eternally between God the Father and Christ.72 Davenant expresses the terms of the covenant appealing to Jer. 31:33 and Heb. 8:10: In this promise, by which God the Father as it were bound himself to the Mediator to give him a seed if he should lay down his soul for sin, a tacit promise is contained of giving faith to the elect themselves, without which they would not be the seed of Christ. It was therefore decreed by God on account of the death of his Son to give faith to some persons, as well as to give a progeny to his Son which should live forever. Christ, having foreknowledge of this promise and counsel, could not but offer the sacrifice of his death to God the Father, with a special intention for this seed, who would hereafter believe.73

Second, this covenant is absolute and, hence, unconditional. There can be no antecedent condition in the one whom God wills to grant the gift of faith. This covenant corresponds to Davenant’s predestination of the elect to eternal life.74 So, in Davenant’s Animadversions, he speaks of predestination as “an eternall, secret, absolute decree, predestinating particular persons unto eternal life without all dependency upon their foreseen faith

144  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism or perseverance” and contrasts that decree with the “evangelical decree of bringing men into the possession of eternal life by the way and upon the condition of their faith, repentance and perseverance.”75 In other words, predestination agrees with Davenant’s absolute covenant, while the conditional evangelical decree parallels his evangelical covenant. Moore is right to see some similarity of what would in later Reformed orthodoxy (1630s onward) be termed the covenant of redemption or pactum salutis in Davenant’s absolute covenant.76 Nevertheless, we should not conclude that Davenant merged the pactum salutis (understood as the covenant of redemption) with the covenant of grace, as Moore intimates.77 Davenant appears more intent on distinguishing the evangelical covenant from God’s intention to provide infallible saving grace for the elect alone than in merging the two ideas. If anything is “merged,” then it might be said, as noted above, that Davenant merges the decree of predestination and his absolute covenant. The two are really the same decree.78 How, then, do the two decrees or covenants, the evangelical and the absolute, relate to each other? Moore suggests Davenant is infralapsarian and orders the two decrees or covenants so that the absolute covenant comes after the evangelical covenant.79 Moore writes, “[C]‌onceptually, the absolute new covenant, though eternal, comes after the conditional, Evangelical covenant with the purpose of ensuring that salvation becomes a reality. . . . In this divine Decree the provision of salvation for all precedes the infallible decreeing of salvation for the elect.”80 It is true that Davenant speaks of the absolute covenant as subordinate to the evangelical covenant, both explicitly and implicitly.81 Davenant, however, is equally clear throughout his writing corpus that he is not ordering the immanent operation of God.82 Although he clearly affirms that “according to the order and nature of the things themselves, and our consideration of them,” the death of Christ ought to be presumed as applicable for all before it is understood to be either applied or infallibly destined to the elect.83 Nevertheless, Davenant insists in many places that this “ordering” is not akin to the lapsarian debates among the scholastics who appear to embrace Scotus’s instantia rationis.84 Davenant, along with the British delegation at Dordt (see 4.3.2 of this study), is skeptical of any ordering of the immanent decrees of God. Moreover, even when he admits that a particular ordering of God’s decree is better suited to “our mode of understanding,”85 he specifically seems to disapprove of making too much of these various schemes: “yet it seems to me a slippery and very dangerous thing [lubricum . . . et valde periculosum]

John Davenant’s Covenant Theology  145 to contend about these imaginary signs of our reason, as to undertake to establish and to refute questions of faith from them.”86 Hence, when Davenant is rightly called an infralapsarian, it chiefly denotes that he affirms that God’s predestination always has, as its object, fallen humanity.87 Davenant’s very definition of predestination presupposes the predestination of some persons as fallen.88

6.3  Conclusion Davenant employs his federal theology in multiple contexts. It is flexible enough to emphasize the unique work of Christ in light of Adam’s fall and the different ways of obtaining eternal life, either legally or evangelically. Yet Davenant also employs federal theology to defend and explain his hypothetical universalism and the relationship between universal redemption and predestination. Moore’s exposition of Davenant’s federal theology and hypothetical universalism fails to recognize the breadth of Reformed orthodoxy during the period and hence does not demonstrate how Davenant’s work is novel vis-​à-​vis either Elizabethean Reformed theology more narrowly or Reformed orthodoxy in its broader European context. In fact, Moore attempts something analogous to the “Calvin vs. the Calvinists” thesis when he chooses Perkins as the exemplar of English Reformed orthodoxy. Indeed, Moore fails to note the patristic, medieval, and Reformed roots that support Davenant’s position. Moore may suppose that Davenant wrongly employs those roots for support, but Moore does not attempt to demonstrate that. Davenant’s federal theology also militates against the tendency of Torrance and others who see federal theology necessitating some sort of particularism, which denies the universal aspect of Christ’s death. To be sure, Reformed theologians did employ federal theology to deny the universal aspect of Christ’s death, but in Davenant it is employed to affirm it! Put simply, federal theology does not necessitate a particular theological system. It functions more like a scholastic distinction than a central dogma. Had Torrance limited his conclusions to Scottish covenant theology, and had he merely recognized the close connection that a particular theologian’s covenant theology bears upon the question of the extent of Christ’s satisfaction, his work on the subject would be less objectionable. But as it stands, Torrance universalizes his findings, making his conclusions untenable.

146  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism If scholarship is to move forward in expositing the nature of federal theology and hypothetical universalism in the early modern period, it is imperative to take into account both the variety of federal theologies as well as the number of Reformed theologians arguing for some version of universal redemption. It simply will not do to read Reformed theology in light of one figure, such as Calvin, Beza, or Perkins. While each of these theologians significantly influenced later Reformed orthodox theologians, broader influences were also at work. These influences came both from within Reformed orthodoxy and from without. In short, Davenant’s federal theology is not nearly as unique as certain scholars have argued when viewed within the wider theological world in which Davenant was a part.

7 Davenant on the Will of God and the Divine Decrees 7.1  Introduction In “To the Reader” in his rejoinder to Richard Baxter on the atonement, entitled Of the Death of Christ, John Owen gives a brief response to John Davenant’s recently published De Morte Christi.1 With regard to the actual content of Davenant’s work, Owen is rather brief, but he does make note of the “many unscriptural distinctions of the various intentions of God in the business of redemption.”2 A little further along, Owen protests what he considers to be the “main design of that Dissertation concerning the Death of Christ”: It is no way clear to me what glory redoundeth to the grace of God, what exaltation is given to the death of Christ, what encouragement to sinners in the things of God, by maintaining that our Saviour, in the intention and the designment of his Father, died for the redemption of millions for whom he purchased not one dram of saving grace, and concerning whom it was the purpose of God from eternity not to make out unto them effectually any of those means for a participation in the fruits of his death, without which it is impossible but it should be useless and unprofitable unto them.3

In other words, Owen’s objection was that Davenant posits a will in God that is neither scriptural nor consistent with the nature of other doctrines, such as predestination. A contemporary of Owen’s, Samuel Rutherford, called these two intentions posited by Davenant “contrair[y]‌intentions.”4 Recently, similar objections to Davenant’s hypothetical universalism have been made. In From Heaven He Came and Sought Her, a recent defense of definite atonement, multiple authors deem Davenant’s theology confused and even incoherent with regard to his doctrine of the divine will vis-​à-​vis Christ’s redemptive work. David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson argue that John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism. Michael J. Lynch, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197555149.003.0007

148  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism Davenant’s hypothetical universalism presents us with a “confused Christ” by introducing “a division within the will of each person as they seek to perform salvation.”5 Hence, according to Jonathan Gibson, the “person and offices of Christ are inadvertently divided . . . distorting orthodox Christology.”6 Another closely related critique offered by Gibson and others is that God’s elective love is in tension with or made subordinate to God’s general love. According to Gibson, in Davenant’s hypothetical universalism, “God’s general universal love trumps his special love for the elect to the extent that the latter becomes a mere ‘afterthought.’ ”7 These criticisms all hinge on the most basic criticism, a criticism we observed in Owen and Rutherford, namely that Davenant posits two wills/​ decrees/​loves in God that are incoherent and contradictory. Donald Macleod expresses almost every criticism of Davenant found in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: More fundamentally, Hypothetical Universalism cannot escape from the difficulty that it posits a serious dislocation within the divine decree. On the one hand, God decreed to redeem all men on condition that they receive the gospel; on the other, knowing that every human being is by nature indisposed to receive the gospel, he decreed to overcome this indisposition only in the elect. He will give them faith; the rest he will pass by—​redeemed but reprobate. In effect there are two saving decrees: one to save everyone from the guilt of sin by the cross of Christ; and another, quite distinct, to redeem only some from its power. This, surely, exposes a lack of coherence in the divine mind?8

Macleod then connects such thinking to Arminianism: “It [hypothetical universalism] also resurrects those other specters that haunt Arminian universalism.”9 As we have already seen, God’s will, the doctrine of election, and the extent of the atonement were intimately bound together. Early modern discussions regarding their relationship were also part of a wider exegetical conversation dating back to the debates over Pelagianism: How must one understand and relate passages in Scripture that affirm God’s will for the salvation of all alongside the doctrine of God’s omnipotence and divine predestination? This chapter will not attempt to defend Davenant’s biblical orthodoxy regarding these charges laid at his theology. Instead, we will investigate some of the basic assumptions of Davenant’s doctrine of the divine will insofar as

Davenant on the Will of God and the Divine Decrees  149 it supports his hypothetical universalism. As will become clear, Davenant’s teaching of the divine will is rooted in medieval discussions on the topic. His doctrine of the will of God, as well as his doctrine of predestination, is unmistakably Thomistic and Augustinian in language and general contours. To those familiar with Davenant’s published writings, this should hardly be surprising given that he cites Aquinas more than any other theologian except Augustine.

7.2  General Contours Regarding the Divine Will Like other Protestant scholastics, Davenant prized clarity of terms. He observed that when theologians talk about God’s will, they do not always have the same thing in mind: “[W]‌hen we say, This is Gods will, This is Gods aim or intent, these words have not alwayes the same signification.”10 He identifies at least three ways in which the divine will could be understood.11 Johannes Strangius, a Scottish theologian and contemporary of Davenant, similarly observed the ambiguity with which the term is used, identifying two proper uses of the term and one metonymical use.12 In order to fully appreciate the various denotations of “God’s will” in Davenant’s theology, it will first be necessary to understand some of his basic suppositions and distinctions with regard to God and the divine will.

7.2.1  Voluntas Simplicis Complacentiae At the bottom of Davenant’s theology of God’s will stands the belief that nothing but God himself moves the divine will. Quoting Aquinas, Davenant writes, “If we speak exactly and properly, nothing apart from God is his end, yet he himself is the end with respect to all things made by him.”13 Concomitant with this belief is the conviction that there is a necessary volition in God for the good, which is the divine essence itself. Thus, Davenant says that “anything is said to be according to Gods will, which considered in itself is according to the goodness and pureness of the Divine nature.”14 This necessary or natural volition in God is termed by Davenant, following standard scholastic language, God’s “love of simple complacency.”15 Hence, when one talks about God aiming or intending to do anything that is in itself good or pure, it is said to be “according to the will of God,” as God’s

150  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism will of simple complacency. Throughout his Animadversions against the Arminianizing Samuel Hoard, Davenant leans heavily upon the Jesuit Diego Ruiz de Montoya and his disputations concerning the will of God.16 Ruiz argues (consistent with other theologians of the period)17 that this love of simple complacency respects all possible good actions of all possible creatures.18 Davenant (citing Ruiz) argues that God, by his love of simple complacency, wills the possible repentance, grace, and glory of the Jews or any of the damned because it is necessary that God delights in all the good actions of his creatures, even though this will “neither decreeth nor determineth any thing infallibly concerning the being or not being of such good acts in this or that singular person.”19 In fact, Ruiz himself proceeds to argue that this is true even for the damned who are already in hell. God could be said at present to be pleased with the possible repentance of the devil himself (insofar as God is able to cause the repentance of any).20 As Davenant makes clear, “The acts of believing and repenting are alwaies well-​pleasing and agreeable to this [voluntatem complacentiae] will of God.”21 That which is good and loveable on its own account (bona et amabilia per se) falls under God’s will of simple complacency (sub voluntante simplicis complacentiae).22 Davenant understands biblical texts such as Ez. 18:32 (“For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God”) according to this voluntas. It is worth noting at this point that Davenant clearly accepted the standard scholastic distinction between God’s signified will (voluntas signi) and will of good pleasure (voluntas beneplaciti). This distinction, having its roots in Hugh of St. Victor and taken up by Peter Lombard and Lombard’s own commentators, was nearly universally accepted by the Reformed orthodox in the early modern period.23 There is a logical relationship between God’s voluntas signi and God’s voluntas simplicis complacentiae. God’s voluntas signi is an act of his voluntas simplicis complacentiae respecting the simple love of a thing, whether that thing is brought about or not.24 Thus, this will of simple complacency, sometimes called God’s approbative will or will of affection (as Aquinas termed it), was contradistinguished with God’s will of good pleasure.25 This relationship between God’s signified will and his will of simple complacency—​where the former is an expression of the latter—​explains why Davenant interprets God’s will in 1 Tim. 2:4, and texts like it, as approbative, revealed, and signified as well as de voluntate simplicis complacentiae, because the former is in fact grounded upon and make known to us the latter.

Davenant on the Will of God and the Divine Decrees  151 Medieval and early modern theologians differed among themselves in their interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:4, which speaks of God willing the salvation of all human beings. Davenant was well aware of other interpretations of this text, most notably the two proffered by Augustine.26 Augustine interpreted 1 Tim. 2:4, and texts similar to it, as teaching either that God wills the salvation of all kinds of men (genera singulorum) or that God wills to save all who are or will be saved.27 Davenant, however, opts to understand it as de voluntate simplicis complacentiae.28 According to Davenant, one can say that “there is in God a true will revealed in the Gospel of Saving all men that shall believe; and a true will Liking, Embracing, Rewarding faith, holiness, perseverance in all men whomsoever without any distinction of persons.”29 Hence, Davenant in various places calls this will “God’s revealed will,” his “signified will,” or “preceptive will,” insofar as there is a “general declared will of God for saving all men which shall believe in Christ.”30 It is on account of this will that God has commanded preachers to indiscriminately preach the gospel to all human beings.31 The will of God in offering salvation in the preaching of the gospel to reprobates is that they should receive it insofar as God approves of that action, but he does not will their receiving the gospel with an “operative and producing will” (voluntate Practica et Operante).32 Davenant also often distinguishes between conditional and absolute decrees with respect to the voluntas simplicis complacentiae. Absolute decrees properly fall under God’s voluntas beneplaciti, whereas God’s voluntas simplicis complacentiae is often expressed conditionally in Scripture. Thus, when Scripture says God wills the salvation of all, it is on the condition of believing in Christ—​an act “so agreeable unto Gods will that wheresoever it is found it shall be rewarded.”33 Consider, for example, God’s voluntas simplicis complacentiae by which God is said to desire or will the salvation of all. This will can be understood as an effectual will (virtually, in itself) with a condition. That is, it is a mixed conditional, as opposed to a mere conditional.34 As the sixteenth-​century Jesuit Gabriel Vásquez explains, “God, by way of an agreement [pacto], willed our salvation by a simple love [affectu] and that salvation is pleasing to him, so that unless sins hinder it, he effectually wills it . . . therefore because of this mixed [implicitae] will under a condition, we say that God has a conditional will, or as they say, willingness [velleitatem].”35 So God may be said to approbatively love the salvation of all, insofar as the objects of faith and repentance are well-​pleasing to him, while also permitting the failing of the event, viz., the salvation of any particular person, on account of their failure to perform the condition.

152  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism Because of God’s foreknowledge of all future actions of all human beings, as well as his absolute power to cause them to do any good which would lead to blessedness or leave them in their sin leading to destruction, all of God’s decrees are either absolute or mixed conditionals. Moreover, all decrees are either revealed or hidden. The decree regarding a person’s election is hidden;36 on the other hand, the decree that God will save any person that believes is revealed. Decrees that come in the form of a condition—​such as “If Esau believes, he will be saved”—​are not pure conditionals, as noted above, but are said to be mixed because they are grounded upon God’s absolute, effectual, and revealed will that he has bound himself to, namely, that he will save any who repent and believe. According to an eternal and inviolable divine ordination, there is an indissoluble connection between faith and salvation.37 Davenant explains: “It is an absolute decree of the Divine will published in the Gospel, That whosoever repenteth, believeth, persevereth, shall be saved: From hence is derived that mixt conditionall decree, If Cain, if Judas, if any other repent and believe, they shall be saved.”38 In short, when Davenant speaks of a conditional decree, he understands such decrees as founded upon God’s absolute will by which he has decreed that the apodosis follow (infallibly) from the fulfillment of the protasis.

7.2.2  Voluntas Providentialis In accordance with God’s love of simple complacency and his signified will is the divine will toward the good whereby God has given to his creatures fitting means for the obtaining of such good. Hence Davenant writes, “God is said to will, desire, aim-​at that good for the obteining whereof he affordeth fitting means, though withall he willeth that it shall be within the liberty of the creature to hinder & frustrate those means, & though he have absolutely decreed to permit the creature to abuse them unto his own destruction.”39 Davenant notes that theologians often call this sort of divine willing “voluntas antecedens, voluntas conditionata, voluntas simplicis complacentiae.”40 This granting of various gifts and graces to creatures is understood by Davenant with Aquinas’s doctrine of God’s providence in view.41 Davenant illustrates this order of providence by observing from the natural world that God has provided for us many bodily remedies that are applicable to heal us, though not infallibly ordained to heal us. In the realm of theology, Davenant explains God’s providential will in furnishing the angels, both elect and

Davenant on the Will of God and the Divine Decrees  153 nonelect, with many gifts ordained by God to the end of the angels’ felicity, even though not every angel obtained such felicity. According to this will, God may be said to have “willed and intended the obedience and salvation of the angels who apostatised, inasmuch as he furnished them with gifts, fit in themselves and suitable, to perform obedience and obtain salvation.”42 According to Davenant, these gifts can be either external or internal, with respect to human beings. One such external gift of God’s providence is the death of Christ, which has been ordained as a universal remedy for the sins of all human beings. Moreover, Davenant argues that within the scope of the church community, God has provided many graces (including the preaching of the word, and even internal graces such as knowledge of one’s own sin and the fear of punishment); these graces, although they all are generally ordered to the salvation of those to whom such graces come, do not infallibly obtain that end. In order to avoid confusion, Davenant emphasizes that when one speaks of “the end of such an action of God or of such a gift of God,” we are not to understand such an end as that which causes the divine volition but rather that God gave to such actions and gifts a “fitness or aptnesse to produce such an end.”43 All such gifts reveal to us, according to Davenant, an antecedent and conditional will or decree in God for the good of all human beings: “We cannot but acknowledge in [“the blessings and means which God has afforded to the angels, to Adam, and which he continually affordeth unto wicked men”] an antecedent and gracious will [in God] to do them good.”44

7.2.3  Voluntas Beneplaciti According to Davenant, most properly speaking, when one speaks of God’s will one is referring to God’s voluntas beneplaciti.45 This will is contrasted with God’s voluntas signi. Whereas God’s signified will can be, and often is, spurned on account of the human will, God’s absolute will is always effectual. This divine will is termed an “effectual” or “predestinating” will insofar as, quoting Aquinas, “whatever God simply wills, takes place.”46 In the broadest sense, this voluntas beneplaciti includes any absolute promise or absolute decree. God has absolutely willed that certain gifts or graces be given to certain individuals. For example, that the gospel message comes to some people and not others is on account of God’s absolute will.47 That all human beings can be saved if they believe is grounded on God’s absolute revealed decree that whosoever believes shall be saved. Yet God has not absolutely willed that the

154  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism gospel message actually be proclaimed to all human beings; nor has God absolutely willed that all believe. Relating especially to soteriology and the doctrine of predestination, it is by this absolute will that God so orders “the means and the very will of the creature that it shall infallibly and infrustrately obtein the good end whereunto such means were accommodated.”48 Using Aquinas’s distinction between providence and predestination, this will of good pleasure “refers to the order of special predestination.”49 Falling under this order of predestination is everything God either positively wills to infallibly bring about or infallibly permit to allow. Accordingly, predestination to faith and glory is defined by Davenant in just the manner one would expect: it is an absolute decree with regard to the graces given for the infallible salvation of the elect: “Predestination is an eternal decree or purpose of God, in time causing effectuall grace in all those whom he hath chosen, and by this effectuall grace bringing them infallibly to glory.”50 On the other hand, negative reprobation is God’s will to “pass over” or his will to not supply effectual, inward, and saving grace to some.51

7.3  God’s Will and “For Whom Christ Died” As demonstrated in c­ hapter 5 of this study, Davenant taught that God intended multiple ends in ordaining Christ’s death. Davenant writes in his De Morte Christi: Christ had a general intention in offering up himself conformed to the Father’s ordination, namely, that he might deliver any persons whatsoever indiscriminately from the guilt of their sins, provided they would believe in him, and in this sense, he is said to have offered up himself for all. Christ also had, being conscious of divine predestination, a special intention conformed to the secret and eternal good pleasure [beneplacito] of the Father, namely, that he might impetrate and grant from [ex] the merit of his death faith, salvation, and all things for the sheep given to him according to the decree of election.52

A couple of observations about this passage are worth mentioning in view of some of the modern criticisms of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism. First, note that these two intentions, general and special, are the intentions

Davenant on the Will of God and the Divine Decrees  155 of both God the Father and Christ the Son. In fact, they are the intentions of all three persons of the Trinity. Davenant affirms the Augustinian notion that “the persons [of the Trinity] are inseparable and operate inseparably.”53 Elsewhere, he expressly claims that “the acts of the Trinity are ad extra indivisible.”54 Whatever the Son wills, the Father and Spirit also will. One modern criticism of hypothetical universalism is that it posits contradictory intentions among the persons of the Trinity.55 For example, Jonathan Gibson argues that the Holy Spirit’s role “underperforms” in God’s universal intention of providing a universal remedy for sins: Despite what some Hypothetical Universalists may argue, the universal intent of the Spirit does not in reality correspond to the universal intent of the Father and the Son. On the universal axis, the Father intends atonement for all, the Son dies for all and makes provision for all, but the Spirit does not bring the gospel to all. The unevangelized remain a problem for proponents of a universal atonement. In this regard, the Spirit underperforms and in so doing brings disharmony into the Trinity.56

This criticism fails to understand what Davenant teaches about God’s general intention. There is no absolute divine intention to “bring the gospel to all.” None of the persons of the Trinity has intended this. Just because God made a universal remedy does not mean he must send gospel ministers to all. Davenant is clear: Although the death of Christ is, from the ordination of God and the nature of the thing, a remedy of such a kind which is able to be both announced and applied to every individual of the human race for the remission of sins. Yet God is not bound [tenetur] by any promise to ensure [procurare] that it should be announced and actually [de facto] applied to every individual.57

In Davenant’s hypothetical universalism, God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) absolutely intended to make Christ a universal remedy for the sins of all. God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), however, did not absolutely intend that the gospel be proclaimed to all. The divinely ordained universal remedy for sins does not ground nor necessitate that the gospel must be proclaimed to all universally, but only that it can be proclaimed to all indiscriminately. There is no obligation that the Spirit brings the gospel to all, because God does not properly will that. According to Davenant, God is absolutely free to

156  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism announce and apply the gospel to whomever he wishes, in accordance with the evangelical covenant: “Law itself and right reason demands this: that to whom the gift itself belongs, it is fitting that to that same person the power of controlling and limiting his/​her own gift belongs.”58 For Davenant, it is the Spirit who, by means of the Scriptures, reveals God’s intention to make a universal satisfaction for all.59 Moreover, because the Spirit and the word are “inseparably joined together by the promise of God in the ministry of the word,” wherever the gospel is preached the minister can say, as the mouthpiece of God, “The kingdom of heaven has come near to you; especially seeing that some supernatural grace is offered to them, to whom the gospel is preached.”60 In other words, the Holy Spirit is present in the proclamation of the evangelical covenant, a covenant that God has not willed to be actually proclaimed universally but has willed that, on account of the ordained sufficiency of Christ’s death, it be universally proclaimable. Another objection made against Davenant’s hypothetical universalism is that he posits two logically inconsistent decrees. Robert Letham writes that Davenant’s “decree [according to which “only the elect receive saving faith”], differentiating between elect and reprobate, conflicts with God’s decision that Christ atone for each and every person by his death. God decides first one thing, then another.”61 Letham’s understanding of Davenant is clearly influenced by B. B. Warfield’s problematic description of “post-​ redemptionism,” Warfield’s catch-​all term for hypothetical universalism. Warfield, whom Letham quotes, asks: [H]‌ow is it possible to contend that God gave his Son to die for all men, alike and equally; and at the same time to declare that when he gave his Son to die, he already fully intended that his death should not avail for all men alike and equally, but only for some which he would select (which, that is, because he is God and there is no subsequence of time in his decrees, he had already selected) to be its beneficiaries?62

This objection highlights a persistent misunderstanding of hypothetical universalism more generally, but especially of Davenant’s position. In the third chapter of De Morte Christi, Davenant explicitly answers this sort of objection.63 The objection to which he responds presumes that he believes in two decrees intending contrary aims: the salvation of all and the salvation of the elect. Yet, for Davenant, “it is far different [on the one hand] to ordain the death of Christ as a remedy applicable to all human beings for salvation and

Davenant on the Will of God and the Divine Decrees  157 to prescribe faith as the way or condition by which it is applied; and [on the other hand] to appoint and absolutely decree to effectually produce faith and salvation in certain persons.”64 Davenant does not claim that God, according to his general ordination, intends to actually save all; instead, he intends to create the legal conditions, as it were, to make all redeemable. Davenant appeals to his distinction between God’s providential willing and his absolute will of good pleasure. By God’s absolute will, he did not intend “to actually procure the salvation of each and every person through the death of Christ.”65 Moreover, Davenant, citing the Dominican Domingo Báñez, specifically denies that “God, with the first sin of Adam presumed, ever had that common and indifferent will of giving to all eternal life in Christ Jesus.”66 Rather, in accordance with providential divine willing, whereby God predetermines the ordination of a means to an end, God “appointed, willed, and ordained that the death of his Son should be, and should be considered, a ransom price [λύτρον] of such a kind that it is able to be offered and applied to each and every human being.”67 And this intention “God clearly achieved [plane assecutus est],” seeing that Christ actually so died for all that all without exception might obtain remission of sins and reconciliation with God if they believe in Christ.68 Since this is an accomplished will, this intention might be said to be in accordance with the divine voluntas placiti: [T]‌here is some kind of ordination or pleasure of the divine will [placitum Divinae voluntatis], according to which the death of Christ is a satisfactory ransom price [λύτρον] thus applicable to the obtaining of remission for each and every human being, that if they should submit themselves to this prescribed ordination and pleasure, it would be actually applied to each and every person.69

Since Davenant does not believe that there is an absolute divine intention to save all human beings by the death of Christ, one can also see how the argument by Francis Turretin (and recently picked up by Gibson) against Amyraldianism does not imply, in Davenant’s scheme, a contradiction in the divine will. According to Turretin, “since [Christ] could not will to die absolutely for the elect without, on the opposite side of things, a will not [nolit] to die for the reprobate, one cannot understand how in one act he should will both to die for the reprobate and not to die for them.”70 But Davenant does not believe that Christ willed to die absolutely for the reprobate, in the sense Turretin has in mind. There is no contradiction in Davenant’s system.

158  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism God’s intention was that Christ make a satisfaction for all sins such that if all believed, all would be saved. This he accomplished, according to Davenant. God also intended to merit, by means of Christ’s death, all the saving benefits to-​be-​applied for the elect alone. This God also accomplished, as all the Reformed granted. One of the actual differences separating the Contra-​Remonstrant position from Davenant’s position is teleological.71 In contrast with some of the Contra-​Remonstrants, who affirmed only a single end in Christ’s death, Davenant says that the death of Christ had multiple ends. He affirms that one end was “the infallible salvation of the elect,” but he denies that “it was the only or sole end [unicum aut solum finem].”72 Whereas Turretin sees the status quaestionis regarding the intention of Christ’s death as entailing an either/​or dilemna—​either Christ died for all or he died for the elect—​Davenant thinks, in line with the original wording of the Lombardian formula, that Christ both died for all, sufficiently, and died for the elect alone, effectually. It should be evident at this point how Davenant would respond to the claim that his position introduces a vain intention. He does not grant that God actually wills anything, by means of his absolute will, which is not accomplished. God absolutely wills nothing in vain. God has conditionally or providentially willed many things that do not ultimately result in, for example, the salvation of those whom he may be said to have conditionally willed their salvation or providentially provided means for their salvation. Nevertheless, the object willed, in these cases, is not the salvation of any absolutely, but rather, in the case of a conditional will, the connection between repentance and salvation, or, in the case of God’s providential willing, the provision of such means by which the condition (if any believe, he or she will be saved) can actually obtain. Accordingly, Davenant answers the objection raised by Owen, quoted at the beginning of this chapter. It is not contrary to divine wisdom that God can and even does ordain and confer means to an end upon human beings while permitting the failure of attaining that end on account of their failure to attain that end. God permits these failures in order to obtain a greater end, namely, in order to illustrate his glory. God demonstrates his justice toward those who abuse such means, shows mercy toward those who do not abuse such means, and, finally, he underscores his supreme dominion by which he does not reveal the means of salvation (e.g., the preaching of the gospel) to some.73 As for the atoning work of Christ and God’s will for the salvation of all, we can now conclude with a few important theses affirmed by Davenant. First,

Davenant on the Will of God and the Divine Decrees  159 God can be said to will the salvation of all, insofar as he delights, according to his will of simple complacency, in the repentance of any and has promised to save whosoever would repent. Hence, these two propositions can stand together: “Deus vult ut omnes credant et salvi fiant, voluntate Complacentiae; Deus vult et decrevit permittere ut quidam increduli maneant, et salvi non fiant sed pereant, voluntate Absoluta. [God wills that all believe and be saved by his will of complacency; God wills and has decreed to permit that certain people remain unbelieving and not be saved, but perish, by his absolute will].”74 Second, Davenant believes that God providentially willed the death of Christ to be a universal remedy for all, yet he has not willed the death of Christ to be infallibly applied to all according to his voluntas beneplaciti. God has willed to provide Christ as a remedy by which all human beings might be saved, but did not ordain that this means of salvation always attain its end. God’s omnipotence is not undermined when this providential willing of certain gifts ordered to human salvation does not actually lead to salvation, 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.”75 Finally, Davenant believes that God, according to his voluntas beneplaciti, has willed the actual salvation of the elect alone such that Christ, by his death, absolutely merited the gift of saving faith for the elect, by which the death of Christ would be infallibly applied to them.

7.4  Conclusion Davenant employs various scholastic distinctions when he discusses the nature of divine willing. He leaned on these distinctions because they helped him make sense of the various ways Scripture talks about God’s will and allowed him to explain some of his theological views, including the extent of Christ’s satisfaction. Indeed, his appeal to such distinctions regarding the divine will come to the foreground in polemical contexts where nuance is necessary. Davenant clearly depended upon medieval and early modern scholasticism for the various employed distinctions. For example, his distinction between providential ordination and predestination comes directly from Aquinas. Davenant also relies heavily upon the Roman Catholic theologian Ruiz de Montoya, especially in his Animadversions, in order to distinguish God’s will of simple complacency for the salvation of all from God’s

160  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism absolute will to save the elect alone, preserving the Reformed doctrine of predestination and emphasizing the fact that whatever God absolutely wills invariably comes to pass. Davenant’s use of scholastic sources for his doctrine of the divine will is eclectic. He drew extensively from both Dominican and Jesuit sources in his defense of the doctrine of Reformed predestination against the Arminian Hoard, and relied heavily on Aquinas more generally in his arguments against the Jesuits and Arminians. Without a doubt, some of Davenant’s distinctions regarding the divine will would not have been shared by many of his Reformed colleagues, yet none of those distinctions stood outside the broader scope of scholastic, Reformed orthodox theology.

8 Conclusion Scholarly and popular accounts of John Davenant’s hypothetical universalism have consistently depicted him as pushing against the boundaries of Reformed orthodoxy—​that he defended a via media between Arminianism and Reformed theology. However, as this study has shown, Davenant never intended this. In actual fact, his hypothetical universalism was simply a continuation of an extensive antecedent trajectory of Reformed theology that affirmed the Lombardian formula by teaching an ordained sufficiency and universal satisfaction. Instead of depicting Davenant’s hypothetical universalism as a softening of the Reformed tradition, it is perhaps better explained as a defense of the older, even ancient language of Christ dying for all sufficiently and the elect efficaciously. Theologians in the Christian tradition consistently used such language, especially from the fifth century onward. Indeed, Davenant makes a good case that when the patristic and medieval theologians spoke of Christ dying for the elect, they did not deny that Christ also died for all sufficiently. While Davenant’s reading of the Augustinian position was challenged by some of his contemporaries, it was by no means unique; other Reformed theologians, such as David Pareus and Jacob Kimedoncius, interpreted the Augustinian teaching similarly. One critical element for rightly understanding Davenant’s defense of hypothetical universalism is the plurality of positions and language found among early modern theology immediately preceding his own foray into the debate. The disputes with the Lutherans in the sixteenth century as well as the early debates with the Remonstrants brought to the foreground a host of questions and concerns related to the generally uncontroversial Lombardian formula. At the Synod of Dordt, Davenant and his fellow British delegates, by their careful feedback on the various drafts of the Canons of Dordt, ensured that the Canons would not be written to exclude their own position on the object of Christ’s satisfaction and the teaching that Christ died for all sufficiently. Davenant’s own treatise in defense of his position on the extent of Christ’s satisfaction, De Morte Christi, was an attempt to address the various questions surrounding the debates that had arisen over the course of several decades. John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism. Michael J. Lynch, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197555149.003.0008

162  John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism At every point, Davenant maintained the thesis that the Lombardian formula, as classically understood, was his own position and consistent with catholic orthodoxy. Of course, his defense of hypothetical universalism was also in service of other theological doctrines. He believed that without an ordained sufficiency, whereby God in Christ made a universal remedy for the sins of all human beings, the offer of the gospel could not be indiscriminately preached. The message of the covenant of grace, promising remission of sins to all human beings on condition of faith and repentance, would be vacuous. Davenant’s hypothetical universalism has been subject to numerous misinterpretations not only because he himself has perhaps not been read carefully, but also because his view has been lumped together with later positions found among the Reformed, most notably French Amyraldianism. This lumping together of the two positions has resulted in the unsubstantiated assumption that later critiques of Amyraldianism largely correspond with Davenant’s own position, when, in fact, Davenant’s position may have been quite a bit different (as evidenced in his criticism of John Cameron’s language) from the later French hypothetical universalists. Davenant must be read on his own terms, in his own context, with due acknowledgment of his own concerns and interlocutors. Perhaps the biggest hurdle in interpreting Davenant’s hypothetical universalism is the difficulty of his De Morte Christi. In contrast with some of the more popular early modern works on the extent of the atonement from a Reformed position—​such as John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ—​Davenant’s treatise was written in Latin and was intended for other scholars of the period intimately familiar with the contemporary debates. Hence, the various scholastic nuances of De Morte Christi present a significant challenge to the modern interpreter. It is our hope that this study succeeded, at least in some measure, in making Davenant’s hypothetical universalism more accessible to modern readers.

Notes

Chapter 1 1. James Ussher, The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, D.D., Lord Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland, 17 vols. (Dublin: Hodges, Smith, 1864), 15:542. 2. Ussher, Works, 16:46. 3. John Arrowsmith, Tacita Sacra, Sive De milite Spirituali Pugnante, Vincente, & Triumphante Dissertatio, Tribus Libris comprehensa (Cambridge: John Field, 1657), 47: “Quibus paria sunt quae sui temporis Augustinus, nostrae Angliae et imprimis Academiae Contabrigiensis decus singulare D. Davenantius Sarisburiensis.” 4. For an overview of Davenant’s life, see Morris Fuller, The Life Letters & Writings of John Davenant D.D., 1572–​1641, Lord Bishop of Salisbury (London: Methuen, 1897). 5. Richard Baxter, A Christian Directory: Or a Summ of Practical Theologie, and Cases of Conscience . . . (London: Robert White, 1673), III.q.174 [p. 922]. Cf. [Richard Holdsworth?], “Directions for a Student in the Universitie,” in Harris Francis Fletcher, The Intellectual Development of John Milton, 2 vols. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1961), 2:640: “For the right spending therfore of the time aforesayd besure never to be without some of the most Pious, & most approved works of those Authours, or the like, according as your Tutor or a Freind will direct you. B. Hall, Sibs. Preston Bolton. Davenant, Perkins, Drexelius, &c.” 6. Gisbertus Voetius, Exercitia et Bibliotheca Studiosi Theologiae (Utrecht: Wilhelmus Strick, 1644), II:480, 491, 522, 571, 576. Cf. Gisbertus Voetius, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum, 5 vols. (Utrecht: Johannes à Waesberge, 1655), 2:409: “Davenantii et Samuelis Wardi; quorum eximia eruditione et orthodoxia anti-​ Pelagiana coram et familiariter Dordraci frui mihi contigit.” 7. Mark Burden, “Academic Learning in the Dissenters’ Private Academies, 1660–​1720” (PhD diss., University of London, 2012), 238. 8. John England, A View of Arminianism Compared with Moderate Calvinism. Wherein is shewed the Dangerous Tendency of the Arminian doctrine, . . . Whereunto is Prefix’d a Table or Scheme of God’s decrees . . . (London: T. Parkhurst, J. Clark, and J. Miller, 1707); John Humfrey, Free Thoughts Upon these Heads . . . (London: T. Parkhurst and Jonathan Robinson, 1710), 8ff. 9. John Davenant, Epistola Davenantii [ad Samuelem Wardum], in Thomas Bedford, Vindiciae Gratiae Sacramentalis . . . Quibus praefigitur Epistola Reverendissimi Patris, & Praesulis dignissimi Joannis Davenantii . . . (London: Guil. Dugard, 1650), 1–​ 31; Thomas Gataker, Reverendi Viri Dom. Joannis Davenantii . . . Epistola, in qa de Infantium qorumvis rite Baptizatorum statu disseritur . . . Una cum Stricturis in eandem

164 Notes nonnullis (London: J.G., 1654); Voetius, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum, 2:408–​10; Cornelius Burgess, Baptismall Regeneration of Elect Infants . . . (Oxford: I.L., 1629), 226–​29 (p. 229 is mispaginated as p. 230). Herman Witsius, De Efficacia et Utilitate Baptismi in Electis foederatorum parentum infantibus, in Miscellaneorum Sacrorum Tomus alter, Continens XXIII Exercitationes, maxima ex parte Historico-​& Critico-​Theologicas . . . Quibus accesserunt Animadversiones Irenicae ad Controversias quasdam Anglicanas; ut & Orationes Quinque (Amsterdam: Franciscus Halmas and William vande Water, 1700), 611–​68, 619–​22; Anthony Burgess, The True Doctrine of Justification Asserted & Vindicated . . . (London: Thomas Underhill, 1654), 144. Cf. Stephen Hampton, “Samuel Ward and the Defense of Dort in England,” in Beyond Dordt and De Auxiliis: The Dynamics of Protestant and Catholic Soteriology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. Jordan J. Ballor, Matthew T. Gaetano, and David S. Sytsma (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 200–​218. 10. Cf. Sara Jean Clausen, “Calvinism in the Anglican Hierarchy, 1603–​1643: Four Episcopal Examples” (PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, 1989), 109–​10: “[M]‌odern studies by contrast, have tended to relegate Davenant to a position of relative obscurity; only his presence on the British delegation at Dort is typically noted.” 11. John Davenant, Dissertationes Duae: Prima de Morte Christi, Quatenus ad omnes extendatur, Quatenus ad solos Electos restringatur. Altera De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione . . . Quibus subnectitur ejusdem D. Davenantii Sententia de Gallicana controversia (Cambridge: Roger Daniels, 1650) [hereafter DD]; John Davenant, Dissertatio De Morte Christi . . . (Cambridge: Roger Daniels, 1683). On dating its completion, cf. John Davenant to Samuel Ward, November 4, 1628, Tanner MS 72 fol. 298v, Bodleian Library, Oxford University. Apparently, when it was eventually published in Dissertationes Duae, there were only six hundred copies printed. See Robert Abbot to Richard Baxter, January 7, 1651/​2, Baxter Correspondence, MS 59, iv.180, Dr. Williams Library, London. The idea that these began as lectures is offered by Thomas Bedford, the editor of Davenant’s DD. Cf. DD, A3r (Lectori Benevolo). All citations to DD will include a reference to one of the two treatises (De Morte Christi and De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione) or the appendix (Sententia de Gallicana controversia) and a subsequent page number to the nineteenth-​century English translation of Davenant’s De Morte Christi and Sententia de Gallicana controversia: John Davenant, “A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, as to Its Extent and Special Benefits: Containing a Short History of Pelagianism, and Shewing the Agreement of the Doctrines of the Church of England on General Redemption, Election, and Predestination, with the Primitive Fathers of the Christian Church, and above All, with the Holy Scriptures,” in An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians . . . to which is added a translation of Dissertatio de morte Christi, by the same prelate, trans. Josiah Allport, 2 vols. (London: Hamilton, Adams, 1832), 2:309–​ 558; John Davenant, “On the Controversy among the French Divines of the Reformed Church, concerning the Gracious and Saving Will of God towards Sinful Men,” in An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, 2:559–​69. 12. Davenant, “De Gallicana Controversia sententia,” in DD, Ii4r–​Jjv (561–​69).

Notes  165 13. Herman Hildebrand, Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, De Mortis Christi Sufficientia et Efficacia, Reprobationis Causa Meritoria, Privata Denique Communione . . . Et postmodum Judiciis Theologorum clarissimorum, in Anglia Reverendiss. Johannis Davenantii Sarisburiensis & Josephi Halli Exoniensis episcoporum, in Germania Brandenburgensium Hassiacorum et Bremensium comprobata ac Auctoritatibus Ex veneranda partum, scholasticorum & conciliorum antiquitate & recentiorum Doctorum . . . (Bremen: Bertholdus Villierianus, 1642). 14. Pace comments such as those made by Gerald Bray, God Has Spoken: A History of Christian Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), 909: “If what Davenant claimed for universality was true, then surely salvation for the ‘non-​elect’ must be not only a possibility but a reality, at least in some cases. That Davenant was moving in that direction can scarcely be doubted.” 15. Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened: Or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace . . . (Edinburgh: A.A., 1655), 236ff; John Owen, Of the Death of Christ, The Price he paid, and the Purchase he made. Or, The Satisfaction, and Merit of the Death of Christ cleared, the Universality of Redemption thereby oppugned . . . Vindicated from the Exceptions, and Objections of Mr. Baxter (London: Peter Cole, 1650), A1v–​A2v. 16. On the Calvin vs. the Calvinists debate, see esp. Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). On the debate among Anglicans, see esp. the survey of literature in Jay T. Collier, Debating Perseverance: The Augustinian Heritage in Post-​Reformation England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 5–​ 9. Cf. Anthony Milton, “Introduction: Reformation, Identity, and ‘Anglicanism’, c. 1520–​1662,” in The Oxford History of Anglicanism, ed. Anthony Milton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 1:1–​27. 17. On the diversity of the Reformed tradition more generally, see esp. Jonathan D. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2007), 224–​25; Richard A. Muller, “Diversity in the Reformed Tradition: A Historiographical Introduction,” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism, ed. Mark Jones and Michael A. Haykin (Oakville, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 11–​30; J. V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014). The diversity of Reformed polities among the Reformed orthodox has yet to be fully explored, but note two recent works: Hunter Powell, The Crisis of British Protestantism: Church Power in the Puritan Revolution, 1638–​44 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015); Ted G. Van Raalte, “The French Reformed Synods of the Seventeenth Century,” in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches: From Henry IV to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, ed. Martin I. Klauber (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 57–​97. On the Reformed character of Reformation and Post-​Reformation theology in England, see esp. Seán F. Hughes, “The Problem of ‘Calvinism’: English Theologies of Predestination, c. 1580–​1630,” in Belief and Practice in Reformation England: A Tribute

166 Notes to Patrick Collinson from His Students, ed. Susan Wabuda and Caroline Litzenberger (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), 229–​49; W. B. Patterson, William Perkins and the Making of a Protestant England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014); Michael J. Lynch, “Richard Hooker and the Development of English Hypothetical Universalism,” in Richard Hooker and Reformed Orthodoxy, ed. W. Bradford Littlejohn and Scott N. Kindred-​Barnes (Bristol, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 273–​93; David Como, “Puritans, Predestination and the Construction of Orthodoxy in Early Seventeenth-​ Century England,” in Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c. 1560–​ 1660, ed. Peter Lake and Michael Questier (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000), 64–​87; Anthony Milton, Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought 1600–​ 1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 18. E.g., Henry A. G. Blocher, “Jesus Christ the Man: Toward a Systematic Theology of Definite Atonement,” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, ed. Jonathan Gibson and David Gibson (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013) [hereafter FHHCSH], 541–​82, 547: “Between advocates of definite atonement and Hypothetical Universalism in the Reformed tradition, this difference has not been the acceptance or rejection of Peter Lombard’s dictum, ‘sufficient for all, efficient for the elect,’ though mild criticisms were heard.” As will become clear, Blocher’s summary of Lombard’s dictum prejudices his claim. Cf. 5.4.2 of our study. 19. E.g., note the exposition of the Reformed position in Michael Horton, For Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 80. 20. David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson, “Sacred Theology and the Reading of the Divine Word: Mapping the Doctrine of Definite Atonement,” in FHHCSH, 33–​ 53, 35; Cf. Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 404–​5. So also Cornelis P. Venema, “Predestination and Election,” in Reformation Theology: A Systematic Summary, ed. Matthew Barrett (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 275. Compare Gibson and Gibson’s “Sacred Theology” with Lee Gatiss, “The Synod of Dort and Definite Atonement,” in FHHCSH, 143–​63. Gatiss rightly argues that “[d]‌espite disagreements with other delegations, Davenant and Ward happily subscribed to the original pristine statement of ‘five-​point Calvinism’ ” (163); Davenant to Ward, November 4, 1628, Tanner MS 72 fol. 298v. 21. On French Amyraldianism, see esp. Albert Gootjes, “John Cameron (ca. 1579–​ 1625) and the French Universalist Tradition,” in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches: From Henry IV to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, ed. Martin I. Klauber (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage, 2014), 169–​96; André Sabatier, Étude historique sur l’universalisme hypothétique de Moïse Amyraut (Toulouse: A. Chauvin, 1867); Leonard Proctor, “The Theology of Moise Amyraut Considered as a Reaction against Seventeenth-​Century Calvinism” (PhD diss., University of Leeds, 1952); Roger Nicole, “Moyse Amyraut (1596–​1664) and the Controversy on Universal Grace” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1966).

Notes  167 22. David Blondel, Actes Authentiques des Eglises Reformees . . . (Amsterdam: Jean Blaeu, 1655), 12. 23. Alexander Schweizer, “Moses Amyraldus: Versuch einer Synthese des Universalismus und des Partikularismus,” in Theologische Jahrbücher, ed. F. C. Baur and E. Zeller, 16 vols. (Tübingen: Ludwig Friedrich Fues, 1852), 11:41–​101, 155–​207; Alexander Schweizer, Die protestantischen Centraldogmen in ihrer Entwicklung innerhalb der reformirten Kirche, 2 vols. (Zurich: Orell, Fuessli, 1856), 2:305. Cf. John M’Clintock and James Strong, Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, 10 vols. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1867–​87), 3:519. 24. E.g. Richard Baxter, The Saints Everlasting Rest: Or A Treatise Of the Blessed State of the Saints in their enjoyment of God in Glory . . . , 2nd ed. (London: Thomas Underhill and Francis Tyton, 1651), a1r; Richard Baxter, Rich: Baxter’s Confession of his Faith, Especially concerning the Interest of Repentance and sincere Obedience to Christ, in our Justification & Salvation (London: R.W., 1655), 21; Richard Baxter, Catholick Theologie: Plain, Pure, Peaceable: For Pacification Of the Dogmatical Word-​Warriours . . . In Three Books (London: Robert White, 1675), Bk. II, 50ff; Richard Baxter, Certain Disputations Of Right to Sacraments, and the true nature of Visible Christianity, Defending them against several sorts of Opponents, especially against the second assault of that Pious, Reverend and Dear Brother Mr. Thomas Blake (London: William Du-​Gard, 1657), B1v–​C2v. 25. Richard Baxter, Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church-​membership and Baptism . . . (London: T[homas] U[nderhill] and F[rancis] T[yton], 1656), 275. 26. George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement, as Taught by the Apostles; Or, the Sayings of the Apostles Exegetically Expounded. With Historical Appendix (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870), 542. 27. Roger Nicole, “Brief Survey of the Controversy on Universal Grace (1634–​1661),” in Standing Forth: Collected Writings of Roger Nicole (Geanies House, Fearn: Mentor, 2002), 313–​30, 328; Curt Daniel, “Hyper-​Calvinism and John Gill,” 2 vols. (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 1983), 527; John Macleod, Scottish Theology: In Relation to Church History Since the Reformation, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: Knox Press, 1974) 176, 267; Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003–​6), 3:461; Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1937), 195; Paul Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), 36–​37. 28. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner, 1872), 2:321–​ 22, 726–​ 28; B. B. Warfield, The Westminster Assembly and Its Work (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1931), 139–​45; B. B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1915), 113ff; William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3rd ed., ed. Alan W. Gomes (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2003), 350; Bruce Demarest, “Amyraldianism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2001), 53–​54; Roger Nicole “Amyraldism,” in New Dictionary of Theology, ed. Sinclair Ferguson, David F. Wright, and J. I. Packer (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 17; A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, rewritten and enlarged ed. (New York: Robert Carter and

168 Notes Brothers, 1879), 418, 232; A. A. Hodge, The Atonement (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1867), 351–​52; Ian Hamilton, “Amyraldianism: Is It Modified Calvinism?,” in Confessing Our Hope: Essays Celebrating the Life and Ministry of Morton H. Smith, ed. Joseph A. Pipa Jr. and C. N. Willborn (Taylor, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 2004), 71–​92; Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, new ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1996), 394; Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, 195; Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 517; Willem J. Van Asselt et al., Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, trans. Albert Gootjes (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 151; Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement, 540ff; William Cunningham, Historical Theology: A Review of the Principal Doctrinal Discussions in the Christian Church since the Apostolic Age, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1863), 2:328; A. Craig Troxel, “Amyraut ‘at’ the Assembly: The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Extent of the Atonement,” Presbyterion 22, no. 1 (1996): 43–​ 55; R. L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology, 2nd ed. (St. Louis, MO: Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis, 1878), 235–​36, 519–​20; Geerhardus Vos, “The Scriptural Doctrine of the Love of God,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2001), 425–​57, 456–​57; Joel R. Beeke et al., Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust, 2008), 78; Walter Arthur Copinger, A Treatise on Predestination, Election, and Grace: Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical (London: James Nisbet, 1889), 57–​58. 29. Note the comment of E. A. Washburn in Philip Schaff, Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiae Universalis: The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes, 3 vols. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877), 1:610: “The Arminian doctrine entered early from Holland, and in the visit of the divines sent by James to the Synod of Dort, among whom were Hall and Davenant, we have the early traces of the change. Davenant was nominally against the Remonstrants, but the ‘Suffrages’ prove already the milder tone of the English theology.” 30. Fuller, The Life, 6. 31. Fuller, The Life, 6: “The comparative oblivion into which the works of Bishop Davenant have fallen, notwithstanding the high estimation in which they were formerly held, must be imputed to the language in which they are composed, for certainly rich as our church is in theologians, she has none perhaps, who in the union of acute and correct argument, solid judgment, scriptural depth, and profound patristic and scholastic erudition, are to be named with him.” Note how often Cardinal Newman cites Davenant in John Henry Newman, Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification (London: Rivingtons, 1890). 32. Fuller, The Life, 524. 33. C. Fitzsimons Allison, The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter (Vancouver: Regent College, 1966). 34. William Robert Godfrey, “Tensions within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618–​1619” (PhD diss., Stanford University, 1974).

Notes  169 35. Godfrey, “Tensions,” 182, 182n22. 36. Godfrey, “Tensions,” 183n22. 37. Godfrey, “Tensions,” 185, 187, 183n22: “Amyraut’s position has been called ‘hypothetical universalism’ because he places the decree to send Christ with a universal saving intention before the decree that the Spirit should apply that work of Christ to the elect alone. For Davenant, Christ’s intention in regard to all men is not based on Amyraut’s strict separation of the work and intention of the various members of the Trinity. For Davenant, Christ actually established a conditional covenant open to all men on the condition of faith. His position does not share therefore the hypothetical nature of Amyraut’s.” 38. Godfrey, “Tensions,” 268. 39. John Platt, “Eirenical Anglicans at the Synod of Dort,” in Reform and Reformation: England and the Continent c. 1500–​ c. 1750, ed. Derek Baker (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1979), 221–​43; John Platt, “Les Anglais à Dordrecht,” in La Controverse Interne au Protestantisme (XVIe–​XXe siècles), ed. Michel Peronnet (Montpellier: Université Paul-​Valéry, 1983), 109–​28. Platt’s unpublished essay, “The British Delegation and the Framing of the Second Head of at the Synod of Dort” has also been variously cited by scholars. Other notable studies include Milton, Catholic and Reformed, 417–​24; Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism c. 1590–​1640 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 87–​105; Peter White, Predestination, Policy, and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 175–​ 202; Michael Willoughby Dewar, “The British Delegation at the Synod of Dort, 1618–​1619,” Evangelical Quarterly 46, no. 2 (1974): 103–​16; Michael Willoughby Dewar, “The British Delegation at the Synod of Dort: Assembling and Assembled; Returning and Returned,” Churchman 106, no. 2 (1992): 130–​46. 40. Clausen, “Calvinism,” 109. 41. Clausen, “Calvinism,” 109–​ 11. Clausen wrongly claims that White portrayed Davenant as “a closet Arminian” (110n4). Rather, White represents Davenant as a via media between Arminianism and Calvinism, exemplified (as White sees it) in the theology of John Overall. Cf. Peter White, “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” Past & Present 101 (1983): 34–​54, 44–​45. 42. Clausen, “Calvinism,” 118, 131. Cf. Washington Wilkes, A Fearless Defence of the Leading Doctrines, Preached and Received by Modern Antinomians, Succinctly Stated in Seven Letters to His Friends (London: L. J. Higham and T. Davis, 1830), 16–​17. 43. Clausen, “Calvinism,” 165. 44. Clausen, “Calvinism,” 165. 45. Clausen, “Calvinism,” 163. 46. Herman Hanko, The History of the Free Offer (Grandville, MI: Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches, 1989), ch. 5, http://​www.prca.org/​pamphlets/​ Free%20Offer/​cover.htm. 47. Hanko, The History of the Free Offer, ch. 5; Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists, 36–​37.

170 Notes 48. Hanko, The History of the Free Offer, ch. 5: “The error of Amyrauldianism was not confined to France, but soon spread to many parts of the continent and came also into Britain. It is not surprising that this should happen for John Cameron, the teacher of Amyraut, ended his career as Principal in Glasgow College where John Davenant (l576–​1641) was his student.” Hanko does not give any citation for his claim, and I cannot find any evidence for it. By 1622, when Cameron became principal at Glasgow, Davenant was bishop of Salisbury. It is unlikely that Davenant was taking courses in Glasgow by that point in his career! Cf. Mark Shand, “John Davenant: A Jewel of the Reformed Churches or a Tarnished Stone? (2),” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal 32, no. 1 (1998): 20–​ 28, 21n3. 49. Marc D. Carpenter, “A History of Hypo-​Calvinism,” Trinity Review, March–​April 1997, 1–​11, 2–​3. 50. George Ella, “Bishop John Davenant and the Death of Christ: A Vindication,” Focus 2, no. 2 (1997): 12–​16. 51. Mark Shand, “John Davenant: A Jewel of the Reformed Churches or a Tarnished Stone?,” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal 31, no. 2 (1998): 43–​69; Shand, “John Davenant (2).” 52. Shand, “John Davenant,” 45. Cf. Richard Muller’s comments on Shand’s work in Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 128n10. 53. Shand, “John Davenant,” 54. 54. Shand, “John Davenant,” 58. 55. Shand, “John Davenant,” 58. 56. Shand, “John Davenant,” 45. 57. Shand, “John Davenant (2),” 25. 58. Shand, “John Davenant (2),” 27. 59. G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (1536–​1675) (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1997), 150–​52. 60. Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement, 150. 61. Jonathan D. Moore, “‘Christ Is Dead for Him’: John Preston (1587–​1628) and English Hypothetical Universalism” (PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2000); Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism. Cf. Jonathan D. Moore, “The Extent of the Atonement: English Hypothetical Universalism versus Particular Redemption” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism, ed. Mark Jones and Michael A. Haykin (Oakville, CT: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2011), 124–​61. 62. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 219. 63. Richard Muller, review of English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology, by Jonathan D. Moore, Calvin Theological Journal 43, no. 1 (2008): 149–​50, 150. Cf. Moore’s response to Muller in “The Extent of the Atonement,” 156–​61. Note also Muller’s short rejoinder in “Diversity,” 25. 64. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 187–​213.

Notes  171 65. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 196–​98, 202–​8, 207. 66. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 207. 67. Margo Todd, “Justifying God: The Calvinisms of the British Delegation to the Synod of Dort,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 96, no. 1 (2005): 272–​90. 68. Peter White, “The via media in the Early Stuart Church,” in The Early Stuart Church, 1603–​1642, ed. Kenneth Fincham (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993), 211–​230, 224: “They saw themselves as representatives of the king and as apologists of the English Church rather than as defenders of ‘Calvinist’ orthodoxy.” Cf. White, Predestination, Policy, and Polemic, 175–​202. Peter Lake, “Calvinism and the English Church,” Past & Present 114 (1987): 32–​76, 58: “In thus modifying both the presentation and the content of English Calvinism, Ward and Davenant.” 69. Hunter M. Bailey, “Via Media Alia: Reconsidering the Controversial Doctrine of Universal Redemption in the Theology of James Fraser of Brea (1639–​1699)” (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2008), 61–​68. 70. Bailey “Via Media Alia,” 67, cf. 63. 71. So, Richard A. Muller, Post-​ Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 2nd ed., 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003) [hereafter PRRD], 2:15: “I have also rearranged materials in several places and entirely recast some of the sections . . . in part in order to demonstrate two of the sub-​themes of the entire project, namely, the placement of the Salmurian theology within the boundaries of confessional orthodoxy.” 72. Cf. Richard A. Muller, “Revising the Predestination Paradigm: An Alternative to Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism, and Hypothetical Universalism,” paper presented at the Mid-​America Fall Lecture Series, Dyer, Indiana, Fall 2008. 73. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition, 126–​60. Cf. Richard A. Muller, “Dating John Davenant’s De Gallicana controversia sententia in the Context of Debate over John Cameron: A Correction,” Calvin Theological Journal 50, no. 1 (2015): 10–​22. 74. See, e.g., note 22 in Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition, 77. 75. FHHCSH. Cf. Michael Lynch, review of FHHCSH, Calvin Theological Journal 49, no. 2 (2014): 352–​54. 76. Gibson and Gibson, “Sacred Theology,” 43n30. 77. Gibson and Gibson, “Sacred Theology,” 50. 78. Gatiss, “The Synod of Dort.” 79. Gatiss, “The Synod of Dort,” 162–​63, 162. 80. Jonathan Gibson, “The Glorious, Indivisible, Trinitarian Work of God in Christ: Definite Atonement in Paul’s Theology of Salvation,” in FHHCSH, 331–​ 73, 348–​49. The “afterthought” language is borrowed from Vos, “The Scriptural Doctrine,” 456. 81. Gibson, “The Glorious, Indivisible,” 368–​71. 82. Donald Macleod, “Definite Atonement and the Divine Decree,” in FHHCSH, 401–​ 36. Cf. Donald Macleod, Christ Crucified: Understanding the Atonement (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 120–​27. 83. Macleod, “Definite Atonement,” 422–​ 34, 431: “In effect there are two saving decrees. . . . This, surely, exposes a lack of coherence in the divine mind?”

172 Notes 84. Robert Letham, “The Triune God, Incarnation, and Definite Atonement,” in FHHCSH, 437–​60, 444. 85. Garry J. Williams, “Punishment God Cannot Twice Inflict: The Double Payment Argument Redivivus,” in FHHCSH, 483–​515, 509–​10; Blocher, “Jesus Christ,” 572–​ 74, 576–​77. 86. For example, note how Davenant’s name is used six times (including footnotes) in Blocher’s essay, yet without a single citation to his writings. 87. Oliver D. Crisp, Deviant Calvinism: Broadening Reformed Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014), 175–​211. 88. Crisp, Deviant Calvinism, 211. 89. Jared M. Compton, “John Davenant’s Dissertation on the Death of Christ: A Review Essay (With an Invitation),” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 21 (2016): 167–​81. 90. Compton, “John Davenant’s Dissertation,” 169n14. 91. Compton, “John Davenant’s Dissertation,” 169–​72. 92. David L. Allen, The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016). 93. Note that Allen explicitly relied on my previous work in this area. Cf. Allen, The Extent of the Atonement, xxiv–​xxv, 112–​13n326, 368n429, 762–​63. 94. Hyo Ju Kang, “John Davenant, a Champion of the ‘Via Media’ at the Synod of Dort?,” Journal of Academic Perspectives, no. 3 (2017): 1–​24; Hyo Ju Kang, “The Extent of the Atonement in the Thought of John Davenant (1572–​1641) in the Context of the Early Modern Era” (PhD diss., University of Aberdeen, 2018). 95. To cite just one example from many, see Kang’s attempt to translate Davenant’s letter to Herman Hildebrand into English (Kang, “The Extent of the Atonement,” 109): “Concerning the value and efficacy of the death of Christ, it was written by you [Hildebrand] that they were certainly the most sure and truest. For the death and obedience of the God-​Man our Redeemer should have necessarily infinite dignity and efficacy in himself due to the infinite majesty of person. Because it should be understood that it could not reconcile, justify, sanctify, and glorify whoever individual person was, other than this sure way to eternal counsel of God before the foundation was established. And in the most evident fulness of time the gospel is declared.” 96. Kang, “The Extent of the Atonement,” 117. 97. Kang, “The Extent of the Atonement,” 117. 98. Cf. 5.4.2 of this study. 99. David Pareus, “Sententia Doctoris Paraei de quinque Remonst. Articulis,” in Acta, Pars Secunda, 204–​31, 215. 100. Some of the material in this section can be found in Lynch, “Richard Hooker.” 101. On the probable origin of the term “hypothetical universalism” see Frans Pieter van Stam, The Controversy over the Theology of Saumur, 1635–​1650: Disrupting Debates among the Huguenots in Complicated Circumstances (Amsterdam: APA–​Holland University Press, 1988), 277–​78. Cf. Joachim Lange, Gloriae Christi ac Christianismi, 2 vols. (Amsterdam: Romberg, 1740), II, Appendix De Gratia Dei Universali, Epimetrum II.3 [p. 148]: “Universalismi hypothetici formator praecipuus, post JO. CAMERONEM Scotum et Jansenistas, fuit MOSES AMYRALDUS, Theologus

Notes  173 Salmuriensis, natus a. 1596. Defunctus a. 1664. Asseclas nactus inter alios PAULUM TESTARDUM, JOSUAM PLACAEUM”; Johann Lorenz von Mosheim, Institutionum Historae Ecclesiasticae Antiquae et Recentioris (Helmstedt: Christianus Fridericus Weygand, 1755), 966–​67. 102. Those who have conflated the two “universalisms” include B. B. Warfield, Studies in Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1932), 288; Troxel, “Amyraut ‘at’ the Assembly,” 46–​47. Note, however, Lange, Gloriae Christi ac Christianismi, II, Appendix, Epimetrum II.1–​2 [p. 148]. 103. Van Stam, Controversy over the Theology of Saumur, 277. 104. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 217–​20. This point was already made in the seventeenth century by Richard Baxter, who, in his judgment, was wrongly identified as a follower of Amyraut. See Baxter, Certain Disputations, B1r, C2v. Cf. Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement, 540–​43, esp. 542–​43. 105. Muller, review, 150. 106. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition, 127–​44. 107. Van Stam, Controversy over the Theology of Saumur, 277. 108. Rivet’s letter is found in Hildebrand, Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, Judicia, 39. Davenant’s letter is found on 27–​33. Hall’s letter is found in Hildebrand, Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, Judicia, as well as (both in English and Latin) in Joseph Hall, The Works of Joseph Hall, D.D., rev. ed., 12 vols. (Oxford: D. A. Talboys, 1839): 11:451–​63. Rivet writes, “Declarationem trium articulorum, de morte Christi, de Reprobatione, et privata communione, mihi exhibitam, cum judiciis R. R. virorum Josephi Halli et J. Davenantii, legi et perpendi in timore Domini. Nec video cur mihi sit discedendum aut dissidendum a judicio duorum illorum episcoporum, in duobus prioribus articulis” (Judicia, 39). 109. I say “usually” because some theologians could talk about the universality of redemption in ways that did not specifically affirm that Christ died for all. E.g., William Lyford, The Plain Mans Senses Exercised (London: Printed for Richard Royton, 1655), 259–​62, esp. 260–​62. 110. Wolfgang Musculus, Common Places of Christian Religion, trans. John Man (London: Henry Bynneman, 1578), 305 (cf. the whole chapter: “Of the Redemption of Mankinde”); Jacob Kimedoncius, Of The Redemption of Mankind Three Bookes: Wherein the controversie of the universalitie of Redemption and grace by Christ, and his death for all men, is largely handled (London: Felix Kingston, 1598), esp. chs. 11–​12. 111. So, note the title of Richard Baxter’s work published posthumously, Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ (London: John Salusbury, 1694). Cf. Robert Jenison, Two Treatises, the First concerning Gods Certaine performance of his conditional Promises, as touching the Elect, or, A Treatise Of Gods most free and powerfull Grace . . . The second, Concerning the extent of Christs death and love, now added to the former. With an Additionall thereunto (London: E.G., 1642), 216: “Our Church [viz., the Church of England] then doth not deny universal redemption: for we truly say with it and with Scripture, Christ died for all.”

174 Notes 112. Note, e.g., the use of the two terms in Nathanael Homes, The Works of Dr. Nathanael Homes (London, 1652), 12–​16; Baxter, Plain Scripture Proof, 275–​76. 113. Cf. John Brinsley, Gospel-​Marrow, the Great God giving himself for the sons of Men: Or, The Sacred Mystery of Redemption by Jesus Christ, with two of the Ends thereof . . . Wherein (among many other useful and profitible Truths) the unhappy Controversie of the Times about the Extent of Christs Death is modestly and plainly discussed and determined for the satisfaction of those who are willing to receive it (London: S. Griffin, 1659), 36–​38. 114. E.g., Hall, Works, 11:450–​459. 115. Baxter, Rich: Baxter’s Confession, 21; Ussher, Works, 12:553–​54, 554: “Both extremities [regarding “the true intent and extent of Christ’s death and satisfaction”] then, drawing with them unavoidable absurdities: the word of God (by hearing whereof, faith is begotten) must be sought unto by a middle course, to avoid these extremities.” Cf. the Scottish Aberdeen doctor, Robert Baron, in Aaron Clay Denlinger, “Scottish Hypothetical Universalism: Robert Baron (c. 1596–​1639) on God’s Love and Christ’s Death for All,” in Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland: Essays on Scottish Theology 1560–​1775, ed. Aaron Clay Denlinger (New York: Bloomsbury, 2015), 83–​ 102, 87–​99. 116. John Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 10 (339). 117. Regarding the Anglican via media, see esp. John Henry Newman, The Via Media of the Anglican Church: Illustrated in Lectures, Letters, and Tracts Written between 1830 and 1841, 2 vols. (London: Basil Montagu, 1877). 118. Cf. John Davenant, “Doctour Davenant touching the Second Article, discussed at the conference at the Hague, of the Extent of Redemption,” in John Hales, Golden Remains, of the Ever Memorable Mr. John Hales . . . With Additions from the Authours own Copy, Viz. Sermons & Miscellanies, Also Letters and Expresses Concerning the Synod of Dort, (not before Printed,) From an Authentick Hand (London: Thomas Newcomb, 1673) [hereafter GR], letters, 186–​90, 188: “We make no doubt, but this Doctrine of the Extent of Christ’s Redemption is the undoubted Doctrine of the holy Scriptures, and most consonant to Antiquity, Fathers and Councils, to whom our Church will have all Preachers to have special respect in doctrinal points, lib. quorund. Canon. Discip. Eccles. Anglic. Edit. 1571. cap. de Concionatoribus.” Cf. A Booke of certaine Canons, concernyng some parte of the discipline of the Churche of England. In the yeare of our Lord. 1571 (London: John Daye, 1571), 23: “But chiefly they [i.e., preachers] shall take heede, that they teach nothing in their preaching, which they would have the people religiously to observe and beleve, but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the olde Testament, or the newe, and that which the catholike fathers, and auncient Bishops have gathered out of that doctrine.” In Latin: Liber Quorundam Canonum Disciplinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae. Anno MDLXXI (London: John Day, 1571), 12. 119. Whether such a definition, especially the latter part, would include Saumurian hypothetical universalism is worth further scholarly investigation. 120. Baxter, Plain Scripture Proof, 275.

Notes  175 121. Theophilus Gale, The Court of the Gentiles, Part IV. Of Reformed Philosophie (London: J. Macock, 1677), III.4 [p. 150]. 122. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition, 74–​78. 123. See the uses of these terms in Samuel Rutherford, Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himselfe . . . (London: J.D., 1647), 264, 315, 416, 434 (mispaginated), 437 (mispaginated). 124. Rutherford, Christ Dying, 437 (mispaginated). 125. William Troughton, Scripture Redemption, Restrayned and Limitted; or, An Antidote against Universal Redemption, in ten Reasons or Arguments, deduced from plain Scripture . . . (London: J.M., 1652). 126. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition, 75. 127. Troughton, Scripture Redemption, 52–​53. 128. To be sure, the debate was not over whether the death of Christ may be said to be sufficient for every man in respect of its intrinsic virtue. See Troughton, Scripture Redemption, 52. 129. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 10 (341). 130. Cf. Milton, Catholic and Reformed, 418–​35. 131. Davenant, Sententia de Gallicana controversia, in DD, Jj1v (568–​69).

Chapter 2 1. E.g., Irena Backus, Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation (1378–​1615) (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Byung Soo Han, Symphonia Catholica: The Merger of Patristic and Contemporary Sources in the Theological Method of Amandus Polanus (1561–​1610) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015); Sara Erickson Brooks, “The Early Church in the Sacred and Secular Politics of England and the United Provinces, c. 1580–​ 1616,” (PhD diss., Princeton University, 2009); Jean-​ Louis Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009); Irena Backus, “The Fathers and Calvinist Orthodoxy: Patristic Scholarship,” in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, ed. Irena Backus, 2 vols (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 2:839–​65; Scott H. Hendrix, “Deparentifying the Fathers: The Reformers and Patristic Authority,” in Auctoritas Patrum: Zur Rezeption der Kirchenväter im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert = Contributions on the Reception of the Church Fathers in the 15th and 16th century, ed. Leif Grane, Alfred Schindler, and Markus Wriedt (Mainz: Philipp Von Zabern, 1993), 55–​68. 2. E.g., John Jewel, An Apologie, or aunswer in defence of the Church of England, concerninge the state of Religion used in the same (London, 1562); William Perkins, A Reformed Catholike: or, A Declaration Shewing How Neere We May Come to the Present Church of Rome in sundrie points of Religion: and wherein we must for ever depart from them: with an Advertisment to all favourers of the Romane religion, shewing that the said religion is against the Catholike principles and grounds of the catechisme

176 Notes (Cambridge: John Legat, 1598). Cf. Milton, Catholic and Reformed; Jean-​Louis Quantin, “The Fathers in Seventeenth Century Roman Catholic Theology,” in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, ed. Irena Backus, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 2:951–​86; Jean-​Louis Quantin, “The Fathers in Seventeenth Century Anglican Theology,” in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, ed. Irena Backus, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 2:987–​1008; Collier, Debating Perseverance. 3. A Booke of certaine Canons, 23. Latin: Liber Quorundam Canonum Disciplinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 12. 4. John Overall, in the dedication of The works of the very learned and reverend father in God Iohn Iewell, not long since Bishop of Sarisburie (London: John Norton, 1609), 2v. On Overall’s role in the publication of this volume of Jewel’s Works, see esp. Anthony Milton, “‘Anglicanism’ by Stealth: The Career and Influence of John Overall,” in Religious Politics in Post-​Reformation England: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Tyacke, ed. Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2006), 159–​76. 5. John Davenant, An Exhortation to Brotherly Communion betwixt the Protestant Churches (London: R. B., 1641), 35. Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, in Corpus Thomisticum: Sancti Thomae de Aquino Opera Omnia, ed. Enrique Alarcon, http://​www.corpusthomisticum.org/​iopera.html, [hereafter CT], IIª–​IIae q.1 a.7 ad 4: “Et ideo illi qui fuerunt propinquiores Christo vel ante, sicut Ioannes Baptista, vel post, sicut apostoli, plenius mysteria fidei cognoverunt.” 6. PRRD, 2:341ff. 7. Johann Paul Windeck, Controversiae de Mortis Christi Efficacia, inter Catholicos et Calvinistas Hoc Tempore Disputatae . . . (Cologne: Arnoldus Quentelius, 1603), 228: “Calvinus liberaliter largitur usque Irenaei, Tertuliani, Origenis, immo et Augustini aetatem, nihil in doctrina ecclesiae a principio mutatum fuisse.” 8. Windeck, Controversiae de Mortis Christi Efficacia, 228: “Qui non omnino in reprobum sensum dati sunt, plurimum testimoniis, et consensu antiquitatis moventur: ideo decrevi in disceptatione praesentis controversiae Adversariis primum eos opponere SS. Patres, qui quingentos circiter annos a Christo floruerunt: nam hisce temporibus synceriorem doctrinam viguisse, et constanter ac unanimi consensu retentam esse fatentur.” 9. Windeck, Controversiae de Mortis Christi Efficacia, 228–​56. 10. See ch. 3 as a longer defense of this paragraph. 11. David Pareus, Irenicum, sive de Unione et Synodo Evangelicorum Concilianda Liber Votivus Paci Ecclesiae, & desideriis pacificorum dicatus (Heidelberg: Johannes Lancellotus, 1615), 142: “Si aliter Papista et Lutherani sentiunt, contra scripturam et totam vetustatem in errore consentiunt.” 12. Cf. C. Harinck, De uitgestrecktheid van de verzoening (van de apostolische vaders tot Dordt 1618–​1619) (Utrecht: De Banier, 1989), 34: “Ambrosius geeft wel aan, dat Christus op een bijzondere wijze voor Zijn volk gestorven is. Hij zegt echter ook, dat Jezus voor allen geleden heeft.” 13. Heinrich Alting, Scriptorum Theologicorum Heidelbergensium, Tomus Secundus: Continens Problemata Theologica, tam Theoretica, quam Practica (Amsterdam: Johannes Janssonius, 1646), Problemata Theologica, pars I, p. 174.

Notes  177 Cf. Harinck, De uitgestrecktheid van de verzoening, 33, who claims that this idea goes back at least to the time of Athanasius: “Athanasius zegt ook dat Jezus’ verlossingswerk de gehele mensheid betreft, maar dat alleen degenen, die het ware berouw tonen, het nut van Christus’ verlossing ontvangen.” 14. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 1–​4 (318–​36); On Ussher, see Richard Snoddy, “The Sources of James Ussher’s Patristic Citations on the Intent and Sufficiency of Christ’s Satisfaction,” in Learning from the Past: Essays on Reception, Catholicity and Dialogue in Honour of Anthony N. S. Lane, ed. John Balserak and Richard Snoddy (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 107–​29; Hildebrand, Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, Auctores et Testimonia, 1–​221; John Owen, Salus Electorum, Sanguis Jesu: Or the Death of Death in the Death of Christ . . . (London: W.W., 1648), 322–​26; Jean Daillé, Apologiae pro Synodis Alensonensi et Carentonensi, Tomus Secundus (Amsterdam: Johannes Ravensteynius, 1655), 753–​946. 15. Hildebrand, Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, Auctores et Testimonia, 1–​36. 16. Hildebrand, Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, Auctores et Testimonia, 37–​221. 17. Gerhard Johann Vossius, Historiae de Controversiis, quas Pelagius eiusque Reliquiae moverunt, in Gerardi Joan. Vossii Opera in Sex Tomos Divisa, vol. 6 (Amsterdam: P. & J. Blaevus, 1701), VII.1.3 [pp. 780–​86]; John Goodwin, ’Απολύτ ρωσις ’Απολυτρώσεως or Redemption Redeemed . . . (London: John Macock, 1651), 524–​62. 18. John Gill, Being the Judgment of the Ancient Christian Church, or the Sense of the Christian Writers of the first Four Centuries after Christ and before Austin . . . , part IV, The Cause of God and Truth, 4 parts (London: Aaron Ward, 1735–​38), 98–​211. On Augustine, see esp. Joseph Anthony Ferrari, Theologia Scholastico-​Critico-​Historico-​ Dogmatica . . . , 2 vols. (Venice: Anthony Zatta, 1767), 557–​88. 19. Wilhelm Münscher, Handbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, 4 vols. (Warburg: Neue akademische Buchhandlung, 1798), II.§198, 200, IV.§105; Joseph Milner, The History of the Church of Christ, Volume the Second containing the Fourth and Fifth Centuries (Boston: Farrand, Mallory, 1809), 445; John Brown, Opinions on Faith, Divine Influence, Human Ability, the Design and Effect of the Death of Christ, Assurance, and the Sonship of Christ, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: William Oliphant and Son, 1841), 68–​69; Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement, 480–​525; G. F. Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, trans. Ralph Emerson (Andover, MA: Gould, Newman & Saxton, 1840), 367–​368; H. Browne, “Note A,” in Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, and His First Epistle of Saint Augustine, 2 vols. (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1848), II.1236–​48. 20. Note also Daniel, “Hyper-​Calvinism,” 2:496–​510. 21. Godfrey, “Tensions,” 70–​77. See also W. Robert Godfrey, “Reformed Thought on the Extent of the Atonement to 1618,” Westminster Theological Journal 37, no. 2 (1975): 133–​71, 133–​36. 22. Godfrey, “Tensions,” 73. 23. Godfrey, “Tensions,” 76. 24. Godfrey, “Tensions,” 76–​77.

178 Notes 25. Jonathan H. Rainbow, The Will of God and the Cross: An Historical and Theological Study of John Calvin’s Doctrine of Limited Redemption (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1990). 26. Rainbow, The Will of God, 23. Cf. Harinck, De uitgestrecktheid van de verzoening, 49: “Prosper sluit hierin aan bij Augustinus. Hij laat echter wel ruimte om in meer algemene termen over Christus’ verzoening te spreken.” 27. Raymond A. Blacketer, “Definite Atonement in Historical Perspective,” in The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Theological and Practical Perspectives, ed. Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James III (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 304–​23. 28. Blacketer, “Definite Atonement,” 313. 29. Blacketer, “Definite Atonement,” 308. 30. Michael A. G. Haykin, “‘We Trust in the Saving Blood’: Definite Atonement in the Ancient Church,” in FHHCSH, 57–​74. 31. David S. Hogg, “‘Sufficient for All, Efficient for Some’: Definite Atonement in the Medieval Church,” in FHHCSH, 75–​95. 32. Haykin, “ ‘We Trust in the Saving Blood,’ ” 74. Cf. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:456: “The church fathers before Augustine usually speak very universalistically about the saving will of God and the atonement of Christ.” 33. Haykin, “ ‘We Trust in the Saving Blood,’ ” 59. 34. Hogg, “ ‘Sufficient for All,’ ” 89. 35. Hogg, “ ‘Sufficient for All,’ ” 89. Clearly he intends the definition to include the adverb “only,” i.e., “shed only.” 36. Allen, The Extent of the Atonement. 37. Owen, Of the Death of Christ, A2r. 38. Owen, Salus Electorum, 322–​26. 39. Davenant, “Doctour Davenant,” Letters, 186–​90, 188. On the background to this source, see esp. Anthony Milton, ed., The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–​1619) (Suffolk, UK: Church of England Record Society/​Boydell Press, 2005) [hereafter BDSD], 219n110. 40. This is particularly evident in Davenant’s Cambridge lectures, subsequently published as Determinationes, which often lay out a basic history of the thesis under examination before the defense of the thesis. See John Davenant, Determinationes Quaestionum quarundam Theologicarum, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Thomas Buck, 1639). All subsequent citations will include a citation of the English translation found in Davenant, The Determinationes; or Resolutions of Certain Theological Questions . . . in A Treatise on Justification or the Disputatio de justitia habituali et actuali, of the right Rev. John Davenant . . . together with translations of the “Determinationes” of the same prelate, trans. Josiah Allport, 2 vols. (London: Hamilton, Adams, 1844–​46), II:201–​536. 41. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 1–​2 (318). 42. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 2 (319). 43. Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, in Clementis Alexandrini Opera Graece et Latine (Paris: Carolus Morellus, 1629), I.11 [p. 132]: “τήν σωτηρίαν ἁπάσῃ χαρίζεται τῇ ἀν θρωπότητι”; Origen, Origenis Adamantii Operum Complectentium . . . Pars Secunda (Paris, 1604), lib. 4 [p. 464]: “pro omnibus qui usquam sunt peccatoribus, ut relictis

Notes  179 peccatis credant sese Deo, advenisse praedicatur Iesus.” (Davenant’s citation is wrong; Davenant: “Lib 5. Contra Celsum.”) 44. Eusebius of Caesarea, De Demononstratione Evangelica, in Opera, in Duos divisa Tomos . . . (Basel: Henric Petrina, 1570), X, Praefatio [p. 598]: “Oportebat enim agnum Dei, qui a maximo pontifice assumptus fuerat, pro reliquis cognatis agnis, & pro omni humano grege, Deo victimam afferri.” In translation: Eusebius of Caesarea, The Proof of the Gospel Being the Demonstratio Evangelica, trans. W. J. Ferrar, 2 vols. (New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920), 2:191. Cf. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 25 (374). 45. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 48 (424). 46. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 48 (424). 47. Ambrose of Milan, Commentarii in Psalmum CXVIII in Quartus Tomus Divi Ambrosii Episcopi Mediolanensis Operum . . . (Basel, 1538), Serm. VIII.8. [p. 483]: “Ideo autem passus est, ut tolleret peccatum mundi. Si quis autem non credit in Christum, generali beneficio ipse se fraudat.” Cf. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 48 (424–​25). 48. Cf. Harinck, De uitgestrecktheid van de verzoening, 49. 49. Prosper of Aquitaine, Ad Capitula Objectionum Vincentianarum Responsiones, in Divi Prosperi Aquitanici, Episcopi Rhegiensis, Viri eruditissimi, Opera Accurata Exemplarium Vetustorum Collatione a mendis pene innumeris repurgata . . . (Cologne: Arnoldus Kempensus, 1609), obj. 1 [p. 335]. In translation: Prosper of Aquitaine, Prosper of Aquitaine: Defense of St. Augustine, trans. P. De Letter, in Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation 32 (New York: Newman Press, 1963), 164. 50. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 2 (319–​20). 51. For a brief survey of early modern debates on what Augustine taught relative to the extent of the atonement, see Campegius Vitringa, Doctrina Christianae Religionis, per Aphorismos Summatim Descripta . . . , ed. Martinus Vitringa, 6th ed., Pars VI (Leiden: Joannes le Mair: 1776), 147–​49. 52. Cornelius Jansen, Augustinus seu Doctrina Sancti Augustini . . . Tribus Tomis Comprehensa (Paris: Michael Solius and Matthaeus Guillemot, 1641), III.3.21. [3:162]: “Augustinus nunquam in scriptis suis fatetur, Christum pro omnibus, nullo excepto, se dedisse redemptionem, vel crucifixum esse, vel mortuum; sed tantummodo pro illis, quibus mors ejus profuit.” 53. Jansen, “Synopsis Vitae Auctoris,” in Augustinus: “Familiaribus quandoque fassus est, se decies et amplius universa Opera Augustini.” 54. Jansen, Augustinus, III.3.21. [3:162]: “Nec in universis Augustini operibus, nisi fallor, locus est, ubi doceat Christum pro peccatis infidelium in infidelitate permanentium esse propitiationem, vel pro illis se dedisse redemptionem.” 55. Baxter, Catholick Theologie, II.2 [p. 57]. 56. Cf. Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 528: “Many places (I grant) may readily be found, wherein he [i.e., Augustine] denies the possession, and actual enjoyment of the Redemption, or Salvation, purchased by Christ.” 57. Baxter, Catholick Theologie, II.2 [p. 57].

180 Notes 58. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis aliisque in Synodo Dordracena proposita,” Samuel Ward MS L2, Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, 25v. 59. Cf. Vossius, Historiae, de Controversiis, 6:553–​ 830; Enrico Noris, Historia Pelagiana . . . (Pisa: Io. Paulus Giovanelli and Soc. Lucas, 1764); Dionysius Petavius, De Pelagianorum, et Semipelagianorum dogmatum historia, in Opus de Theologicus Dogmatibus . . . Tomus Tertius (Venice: Andrae Polet, 1745), 292–​321; Wiggers, An Historical Presentation; Otto Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius: Die theologische Position der römischen Bischöfe im pelagianischen Streit in den Jahren 411–​432 (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1975); Rebecca Harden Weaver, Divine Grace and Human Agency: A Study of the Semi-​Pelagian Controversy (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996); Gerald Bonner, St. Augustine of Hippo: Life and Controversies (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2000), 312–​93; Alexander Y. Hwang, Intrepid Lover of Perfect Grace: The Life and Thought of Prosper Aquitaine (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2009), 37–​234. 60. Augustine, Divi Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis episcopi, liber secundus, de bono perseverantiae, in vol. 7 of Opera Omnia, ed. Desiderius Erasmus, 10 vols. (Basel: Froben, 1528–​29), cap. 20 [p. 879]. In translation: Augustine, The Gift of Perseverance, in Selected Writings on Grace and Pelagianism, trans. Roland Teske (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2011), 20.53 [p. 511]. 61. Bonner, St. Augustine of Hippo, 321. 62. B. B. Warfield, Studies in Tertullian and Augustine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1930), 289–​412, esp. 289–​98. 63. Heinrich Denzinger, Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals, ed. Peter Hünermann, Robert Fastiggi, and Anne Englund Nash, 43rd ed. (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2012), 222–​30 [pp. 82–​85]. 64. Denzinger, Compendium of Creeds, 231, 243–​44 [pp. 85 and 90]. Cf. M. Lamberigts, “Co-​operation of Church and State in the Condemnation of the Pelagians: The Case of Zosimus,” in Religious Polemics in Context: Papers Presented to the Second International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR) Held at Leiden, 27–​28 April 2000, ed. T. L. Hettema and A. Van der Kooij (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004), 363–​75. 65. Denzinger, Compendium of Creeds, 267–​68 [p. 99]. 66. Hwang, Intrepid Lover of Perfect Grace, 89. 67. Note, however, the terminological issues involved with the term “semi-​ Pelagian”: Hwang, Intrepid Lover of Perfect Grace, 2–​6. Cf. Irena Backus and Aza Goudriaan, “‘Semipelagianism’: The Origins of the Term and Its Passage into the History of Heresy,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 65, no. 1 (2014): 25–​46. 68. Prosper, Ad Capitula Objectionum Vincentianarum Responsiones in Opera, obj. 1 and 2 [p. 336]; Prosper of Aquitaine, Ad Capitula Objectionum Gallorum Calumniantium responsiones in Opera, obj. 9 [p. 324]; Prosper, Prosper of Aquitaine, 149, 164, 165. 69. Prosper, Ad Capitula Objectionum Gallorum Calumniantium responsiones in Opera, obj. 9 [p. 324]: “Nullus omnino est ex omnibus hominibus, cuius natura in Christo domino nostro suscepta non fuerit”; Prosper, Prosper of Aquitaine, 149.

Notes  181 70. Prosper, Ad Capitula Objectionum Gallorum Calumniantium responsiones in Opera, obj. 9 [p. 324]; Prosper, Prosper of Aquitaine, 149. Cf. this idea with Eusebius’s language noted in n44 of this chapter. 71. Prosper, Ad Capitula Objectionum Gallorum Calumniantium responsiones in Opera, obj. 9 [p. 324]: “Cum itaque rectissime dicatur salvator pro totius mundi redemptione crucifixus, propter veram humanae naturae susceptionem . . . potest tamen dici pro his tantum crucifixus, quibus mors ipsius profuit”; Prosper, Prosper of Aquitaine, 149. 72. Cf. Prosper, Prosper of Aquitaine, 226n88. 73. Prosper, Ad Capitula Objectionum Vincentianarum Responsiones in Opera, obj. 1 [p. 336]; Prosper, Prosper of Aquitaine, 164. Cf. a slightly different reading (“ad magnitudine”) in Augustine, Ad articulos sibi falso impositos, Augustini responsio, in vol. 7 of Opera Omnia, art. 1 [p. 921]. I follow the latter reading. 74. Jansen, Augustinus, III.3.21. [3:162]: “Cui conformiter dicere Scholastici solent, Christum omnes redemisse sufficienter non efficienter.” Cf. Samuel Maresius, Systema Theologicum (Groningen: Aemilius Spinneker, 1673), 542–​43. 75. Prosper, Ad Capitula Objectionum Gallorum Calumniantium responsiones in Opera, Sent. 9 [p. 332]; Prosper, Prosper of Aquitaine, 159. 76. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 2 (323): “tamen Augustinum atque eius discipulos nunquam voluisse patrocinum suscipere huius dogmatis, Christum scilicet passum fuisse pro solis praedestinatis.” 77. Cf. Collier, Debating Perseverance. Davenant actually disagreed with Baxter’s interpretation of Augustine. John Davenant to Samuel Ward, October 10, 1625, MS Tanner 72 fol. 55, Bodleian Library, Oxford University, Oxford: “in my opinion it will be found that St. Augustine does more incline to the opinion that only the predestinat attein unto a tru Estate of Justification Regeneration and Adoption.” 78. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 2 (322): “Denique illud clare probat Augustinum non docuisse Christum pro solis praedestinatis mortuum, quod Prosper ex eius sententia propriissimum passionis fructum, nimirum remissionem peccati originalis, ad infantes etiam non praedestinatos extendat.” 79. Prosper, Ad Capitula Objectionum Gallorum Calumniantium responsiones in Opera, Sent. 2 [p. 329]: “Qui dicit, quod ab his qui non sunt praedestinanti ad vitam, non auferat percepta baptismi gratia originale peccatum, non est catholicus”; Prosper, Prosper of Aquitaine, 157. 80. Augustine, De peccatorum meritis et remissione, et de baptismo parvulorum ad Marcellinum, Liber Primus, in vol. 7 of Opera Omnia, cap. 28 [p. 459]. In translation: Augustine, The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Little Ones, in Selected Writings on Grace and Pelagianism, trans. Roland Teske (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2011), I.55 [p. 131]. 81. John Forbes, Instructiones Historico-​ Theologicae . . . (Amsterdam: Ludovicus Elzevirius, 1645), X.16 [pp. 529–​32]. 82. Epistola Davenantii, 1–​31. In translation: John Davenant, Baptismal Regeneration and the Final Perseverance of the Saints. A Letter . . . to Dr Samuel Ward, trans. J. Allport (London: William Macintosh, 1864).

182 Notes 83. Herman Witsius, De Efficacia et Utilitate Baptismi, XIX.7–​14 [pp. 618–​22]. In translation: Herman Witsius, “On the Efficacy and Utility of Baptism in the Case of Elect Infants Whose Parents Are under the Covenant,” trans. William Marshall and J. Mark Beach, Mid-​America Journal of Theology 17 (2006): 121–​90, 132–​37. 84. Witsius, De Efficacia et Utilitate Baptismi, XIX.10 [p. 620]; Witsius, “On the Efficacy and Utility of Baptism,” 134–​35. 85. Cf. William Perkins, De Praedestinationis Modo et Ordine: Et de Amplitudine Gratiae Divinae Christiana et perspicua disceptatio (Basel: Conrad Waldkirchius, 1599), 140; Johannes Bogerman, Ad Scripti Magnifici et Clarissimi viri D. Hugonis Grotii . . . Partes priores duas, In quibus tractat causam Vorstii et Remonstrantum, sive Pastorum ullorum qui sequuntur sententiam I. Arminii, Annotationes In gratiam Lectoris veritatis studiosi conscriptae (Franeker: Rombertus Doyema, 1614), 140n73; Acta, Pars Secunda, 125. 86. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 3 (323): “[V]‌ir quidam doctus dicit Pelagianis et Semipelagianis attributam fuisse hanc sententiam, de universali redemptione et restricta liberation.” 87. Cf. Hugo Grotius, Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae Pietas (1613): Critical Edition with English Translation and Commentary, ed. Edwin Rabbie (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 547–​84, esp. 571–​73. 88. Bogerman, Ad Scripti Magnifici et Clarissimi viri D. Hugonis Grotii, 140. 89. Augustine, Contra Julianum, in vol. 7 of Opera Omnia 3.3 [p. 676]. In translation: Augustine, Against Julian, trans. Matthew A. Schumacher, in The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, vol. 35 (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1957), 114. 90. Cf. William Barlee, Praedestination . . . in a Correptorie Correction . . . (London: W.H., 1656), 133. 91. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 3 (323). 92. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 3 (323): “Quod enim ad infantes attinet, verbo tenus redemptos agnovit Pelagius, sed reapse redemptionis minime indigos docuit.” 93. Augustine, D. Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis Episcopi, Epistolae, Tomus Secundus (Lyon: Sebastian Honoratus, 1561), Epist. 90 [p. 477]. In translation: Augustine, Letters: Volume 4 (165–​203), trans. Wilfrid Parsons, in The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, vol. 30 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1955), letter 175 [p. 89]. 94. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 3 (324): “Agit ex pofesso contra errores Semipelagianorum in libris De Praedestinatione Sanctorum et De bono perseverantiae; nunquam tamen conatur hanc thesin infringere, Christum pro omnibus hominibus fuisse mortuum.” 95. William Ames and Nicholas Grevinchovius, Dissertatio Theologica de Duabus Quaestionibus Hoc Tempore controversis, Quarum, Prima Est de Reconciliatione per mortem Christi impetrata omnibus ac singulis hominibus: Altera, de Electione ex fide praevisa . . . (Rotterdam: Mathias Sebastianus, 1615), 51: “ista Pelagius: at docuit tamen . . . Christum non esse mortuum pro omnibus hominibus.” Cf. Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 525–​26. Goodwin’s argument is difficult to make sense of. 96. Faustus of Riez, Fausti Episcopi de Gratia Dei, et humanae mentis libero arbitrio (Basel, [1528]), I.16. [fol. 35v].

Notes  183 97. Ames and Grevinchovius, Dissertatio Theologica de Duabus Quaestionibus, 51. Cf. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 3 (324–​25). 98. This reading is consonant with Thomas A. Smith, De Gratia: Faustus of Riez’s Treatise on Grace and Its Place in the History of Theology (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990), 85–​86. 99. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 3 (325). 100. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 6 (330). 101. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 4 (325–​26). 102. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 4 (327). 103. Prosper of Aquitaine, Epistola ad Augustinum de Reliquiis Pelagianae Haereseos in Opera, 883; Prosper, Letter to Augustine in Prosper of Aquitaine, 43. 104. Cf. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” MS Ward L2, 25r. 105. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 5 (328). Cf. Prosper of Aquitaine, Epistola ad Augustinum, 884; Prosper, Letter to Augustine, 44–​45. 106. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 5 (328). 107. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 5 (328–​29). 108. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 5 (329). Cf. the De Morte Christi (1683) reading. 109. Jacob Kimedoncius, De Redemptione Generis Humani Libri tres: Quibus copiose traditur controversia, de Redemtionis et Gratiae per Christum Universalitate, et Morte Ipsius pro Omnibus (Heidelberg: Abraham Smesmannus, 1592), I.11 [p. 66]. In translation: Kimedoncius, Of The Redemption of Mankind, I.11 [p. 34]. 110. Kimedoncius, De Redemptione Generis Humani, I.11 [p. 67]: “Quod ad sufficientiam precii, redemtionem esse omnium, quod ad effectum vero, non omnium, sed membrorum duntaxat Christi”; Kimedoncius, Of The Redemption of Mankind, I.11 [p. 34]. 111. Pareus, Irenicum, XXVIII [p. 243]: “Ad Articulos Ecclesiis reformatis falso, vel non bona fide impositos, brevissime respondetur . . . Articulus I. Quod Dominus noster Jesus Christus non pro omnium hominum redemptione sit passus et mortuus. Responsio. Hic primus etiam AUGUSTINO fuit falso impositus articulus.” 112. Cf. Perkins, De Praedestinationis Modo et Ordine, 87–​88. Note also Bavinck’s own summary of the Augustinian position in Reformed Dogmatics, 3:457: “Christ, though in a sense he died for all, yet he efficaciously died only for those whom his death actually benefits.” 113. Rainbow, The Will of God, 23–​24. 114. Rainbow, The Will of God, 23. 115. Davenant does, however, implicitly address Rainbow’s evidence in his De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, in DD, 126–​27, where he explicitly argues that the two exegetical approaches, which Prosper adopts on 1 Tim. 2:4 (according to Rainbow’s reading), need not be in theological opposition to each other. Hence, even if Prosper changed his interpretation on 1 Tim. 2:4, it need not mean that he moved away from Augustine’s theology. Michael Haykin makes a similar mistake (“ ‘We Trust in the Saving Blood,’ ” 73). Note that Augustine himself allowed for other interpretations of 1 Tim. 2:4 in his Enchiridion ad Laurentium, in vol. 3 of Opera

184 Notes Omnia, 103 [p. 133]. In translation: Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Charity, trans. Bruce Harbet, in On Christian Belief (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2005), 27, 103 [p. 332]: “And it can be understood in any other way, provided we are not compelled to believe that the Almighty willed anything to happen that did not happen.” 116. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 2 (321). 117. Haykin, “ ‘We Trust in the Saving Blood,’ ” 72–​73. 118. Cf. almost the same language in Blacketer, “Definite Atonement,” 310. 119. Prosper, Epistola ad Augustinum, 880; Prosper, Letter to Augustine, 39. 120. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 5 (328). 121. Prosper, Epistola ad Augustinum, 883–​84; Prosper, Letter to Augustine, 43–​44. 122. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 5 (329). 123. Haykin, “ ‘We Trust in the Saving Blood,’ ” 72. 124. For an excellent historical introduction to this controversy between Faustus and Lucidus, see Ralph W. Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism and Religious Controversy in Fifth-​Century Gaul (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989), 244–​72. 125. Note the comment made by A. M. C. Casiday, Tradition and Theology in St John Cassian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 37: “We know very little about Lucidus’ beliefs . . . so it is important throughout this discussion to be very reserved in attributing beliefs to Lucidus, since the records only tell us about Faustus and his beliefs and perceptions.” 126. Faustus of Riez, “Eiusdem Fausti Epistola ad Lucidum Presbyterum,” in Magna Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum et Antiquorum Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, ed. Marguerin de la Bigne, 14 vols. (Cologne: Antonius Hieratus, 1618), Tom. 5 pars III [p. 526]: “Item anathema illi, qui dixerit quod Christus non pro omnibus mortuus sit, nec omnes homines salvos esse velit.” 127. Denzinger, Compendium of Creeds, 332 [p. 119]: “qui dicit quod Christus Dominus et Salvator noster mortem non pro omnium salute susceperit.” 128. Denzinger, Compendium of Creeds, 340 [p. 119]: “Christum etiam, Deum et Salvatorem nostrum, quantum pertinet ad divitias bonitatis suae, pretium mortis pro omnibus obtulisse.” 129. Faustus of Riez, Fausti Episcopi, 9r: “In quo quidem opusculo, post concilii subscriptionem, novis erroribus deprehensis, adiici aliqua synodus Lugdunensis exegit.” 130. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 6 (331). 131. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 6 (332). 132. E.g., we have two versions of the Faustus letter sent to Lucidus, one with and one without the names of ten other bishops subscribing to it. Further, it is assumed that the council mentioned by Lucidus in his letter is the same as the Council of Arles mentioned by Faustus in his prologue letter (to Leontius) in De Gratia Dei. See Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism, 244–​72. 133. Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism, 267. 134. Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism, 266.

Notes  185 135. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 6 (332). 136. In the early modern period, there were many differing opinions on the authorship of various medieval texts. For the sake of simplicity as well as consistency, we will continue to follow Davenant’s own scholarship, noting modern disagreements as necessary. 137. Remigius of Rheims, Explanationes Epistolarum Beati Pauli Apostoli, in Magna Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum et Antiquorum Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, ed. Marguerin de la Bigne (Cologne: Antonius Hieratus, 1618), Tom. 5 pars III, loc. Rom. 8.32 [p. 836], 1 Tim. 2.6 [p. 938]. 138. Remigius, Explanationes Epistolarum Beati Pauli Apostoli, Tom. 5 pars III, loc. Heb 2.9 [p. 999]: “Quidam Doctores ita absolute intelligent, ut dicatur pro omnibus, pro quibus gustavit, id est, pro electis ad vitam aeternam praedestinatis. At vero quidam ita generaliter accipiunt, ut dicatur pro omnib. fidelibus, atque infidelibus mortem gustasse dicentes, ipse quidem pro omnib. mortuus est, licet omnes non saluentur.” 139. Remigius, Explanationes Epistolarum Beati Pauli Apostoli, Tom. 5 pars III, loc. Heb 2.9 [pp. 999–​1000]. 140. Gregory the Great, Sancti Gregorii Magni Papae Primi Operum, 6 vols. (Antwerp: Peter and John Bellerus, 1615), vol. 2, In Ezechielem, I.2 [cols. 1051, 1053, 1054]. 141. Haimo of Halberstadt, Haimonis Episcopi Halberstattensis in Divi Pauli Epistolas Omneis Interpretatio . . . (Cologne, 1531), Ad Corinthians II, cap. 5, [fols. z2v, z3v], Ad Hebraeos, cap. 2, [fol. R2r]. 142. Some of Gottschalk’s works have been recently translated into English: Gottschalk of Orbais, Gottschalk and a Medieval Predestination Controversy: Texts Translated from the Latin, ed. and trans. Victor Genke and Francis X. Gumerlock (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2010). On the background of this controversy, see, e.g., Emmanuel Aegerter, “Gottschalk et le problème de la prédestination au IX e siècle,” Revue de l’histoire des religions 116 (1937): 187–​223; Francis X. Gumerlock, “Gottschalk of Orbais: A Medieval Predestinarian,” Kerux 22, no. 3 (2007): 17–​34; Matthew Bryan Gillis, “Heresy in the Flesh: Gottschalk of Orbais and the Predestination Controversy in the Archdiocese of Rheims,” in Hincmar of Rheims: Life and Work, ed. Rachel Stone and Charles West (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015), 247–​67. 143. Gottschalk of Orbais, Œuvres théologiques et grammaticales de Godescalc d’Orbais, ed. D. C. Lambot (Louvain: “Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense” Bureaux, 1945), 40 [frag. 20], 42 [frag. 23], 182, [De Praedestinatione, 7.3], 243 [De Praedestinatione, 16]. 144. Flodoardus, Historiae Remensis Ecclesiae, Libri IIII (Douai: John Bogard, 1617), III.14 [p. 373]. 145. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 7 (334): “Quod perinde est ac si dixisset, tantum pro praedestinatis.” 146. Magna Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum et Antiquorum Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, Tom. 9, De Tenenda Veritate Scripturae, [p. 1093]. 147. Cf. Denzinger, Compendium of Creeds, 625–​33, esp. 630–​32 [pp. 214–​18]. Cf. Forbes, Instructiones Historico-​Theologicae, VIII.16 [pp. 407–​10].

186 Notes 148. Magna Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum et Antiquorum Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, Tom. 9, De Tribus Epistulis, [p. 1060, mispaginated as 1058]. Cf. the discussion of these three classes in Forbes, Instructiones Historico-​Theologicae, VIII.16 [p. 407]. 149. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 8 [misnumbered as 4] (336). 150. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 8 [misnumbered as 4] (336). 151. Peter Lombard, Magistri Sententiarum, Libri IIII (Lyon: Peter Landry, 1593), III.20 [fol. 253v]: “Christus ergo est sacerdos, idemque hostia et praecium nostrae reconciliationis: qui se in ara crucis non diabolo, sed deo trinitati obtulit pro omnibus, quantum ad pretii sufficientiam: sed pro electis tantum, quantum ad efficaciam, quia praedestinatis tantum salutem effecit.” In translation: Peter Lombard, The Sentences: On the Incarnation of the Word, vol. 3, The Sentences, 4 vols., trans. Giulio Silano, ed. Joseph Goering and Giulio Silano, Medieval Sources in Translation 45 (Ontario: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2008), 86 [3.20.5.1]. 152. Kimedoncius, De Redemptione Generis Humani Libri Tres, I.11 [pp. 63–​ 69]; Kimedoncius, Of The Redemption of Mankind, I.11 [pp. 33–​36]; Daillé, Apologiae pro Synodis Alensonensi et Carentonensi, 940–​41; Hildebrand, Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, Auctores et Testimonia, 22–​24; Windeck, Controversiae de Mortis Christi Efficacia, 254–​ 56; David Pareus, Explicationum Catecheticarum D. Zachariae Ursini . . . (Neustadt an der Weinstrasse: Wilhelm Harnisius, 1600), 306. 153. So, e.g., Peter Martyr Vermigli, Predestination and Justification: Two Theological Loci, trans. and ed. Frank A. James III, in The Peter Martyr Library, vol. 8 (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2003), 62; John Calvin, Commentarii in Epistolas canonicas . . . , 2nd ed. (Geneva: John Crispin, 1554), loc. 1 Jn. 2:2 [p. 62]: “Vulgo haec solutio in scholis obtinuit.” Voetius admits the same a century later in his Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum, 2:253. 154. Alting, Scriptorum Theologicorum Heidelbergensium, Problemata Theologica, pars I, pp. 174–​76; Voetius, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum, 2:253. 155. Alting, Scriptorum Theologicorum Heidelbergensium, Problemata Theologica, pars I, p. 174: “Hi [i.e., those Reformed who deny the distinction] putant distinctionem illam praejudicio aliquo antiquitatis receptam esse: quasi ideo vera sit, quia antiquitus obtinuit, et a Patribus usurpata est.” 156. Pope Innocent III, Opera (Cologne: John Novesianus, 1552), IV.41 [fol. CXCVr]: “Pro solis praedestinatis effesus est, quantum ad efficientiam. Sed pro cunctis hominibus est effesus quantum ad sufficientiam.” Although all the seventeenth-​century citations I have seen cite II.41, the two consulted editions of Pope Innocent’s Opera locate the passage in book IV (cf. also the Venice 1578 edition). 157. Kimedoncius, De Redemptione Generis Humani Libri Tres, I.11 [p. 63]. 158. Cf. Michael J. Lynch, “Quid Pro Quo Satisfaction? An Analysis and Response to Garry Williams on Penal Substitutionary Atonement and Definite Atonement,” Evangelical Quarterly 89, no. 1 (2018): 51–​70, 61–​62. 159. This work is possibly pseudepigraphical, though not from the perspective of early modern theologians. Thomas Aquinas, Expositio super Apocalypsim, in CT, cap. 5: “de redemptione facta per passionem Dei est loqui dupliciter: aut secundum sufficientiam: et sic passio redemit omnes, quia quantum est de se omnes

Notes  187 liberavit: omnibus enim redimendis et salvandis sufficiens est, etiam si essent infiniti mundi, ut dicit Anselmus 2 libro cur Deus homo, cap. 14: aut secundum efficientiam: et sic non omnes redemit per passionem, quia non omnes adhaerent redemptori; et ideo non omnes habent efficaciam redemptionis.” 160. Duns Scotus, Quaestiones in Lib. III. Sententiarum, Tomus Septemus Pars Prima (Lyon: Laurentius Durand, 1639), lib. III dist. 19 q. 1. Cf. Andrew S. Yang, “Scotus’ Voluntarist Approach to the Atonement Reconsidered,” Scottish Journal of Theology 62, no. 4 (2009): 421–​40. 161. Cf. Hildebrand, Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, Auctores et Testimonia, 24. 162. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 4 (336). 163. Cf. Lynch, “Quid Pro Quo Satisfaction?,” 61–​62. 164. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, in CT, IIIª q. 48 a. 2, IIIª q. 48 a. 4; Summa Contra Gentiles, in CT, lib. 4 cap. 55 n. 27. 165. Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, in CT, lib. 4 cap. 53 n. 8 together with lib. 4 cap. 55 n. 10. 166. Aquinas, De Veritate, in CT, q. 29 a. 7: “Ad quartum dicendum, quod meritum Christi quantum ad sufficientiam aequaliter se habet ad omnes, non autem quantum ad efficaciam: quod accidit partim ex libero arbitrio, partim ex divina electione, per quam quibusdam misericorditer effectus meritorum Christi confertur, quibusdam vero iusto iudicio subtrahitur.” 167. Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, in CT, lib. 4 cap. 53 n. 26: “Si Christus pro peccatis humani generis sufficienter satisfecit, iniustum videtur esse quod homines adhuc poenas patiantur, quas pro peccato Scriptura divina inductas esse commemorat.” 168. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, in CT, IIIª q. 49 a. 3 ad 1. 169. Aquinas, Scriptum Super Sententiis, in CT, lib. 3 d. 20 q. 1 a. 1 qc. 1 ad 2: “quod omnes homines non reparantur, non est ex insufficientia medicinae reparantis, cum sit sufficiens, quantum in se est, ad reparandum omnes qui naturam humanam habent, vel habere possunt.” 170. Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, in CT, lib. 4 cap. 55 n. 28; cf. Aquinas, Scriptum super Sententiis, in CT, lib. 3 d. 20 q. 1 a. 1 qc. 1 ad 2. 171. Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, in CT, lib. 4 cap. 55 n. 28: “Mors enim Christi est quasi quaedam universalis causa salutis”; Summa Contra Gentiles, in CT, lib. 4 cap. 56; Aquinas, Summa Theologica in CT, IIIª q. 49 a. 1 ad 4: “quia passio Christi praecessit ut causa quaedam universalis remissionis peccatorum”; Aquinas, De Veritate, in CT, q. 29 a. 7. 172. Cf. Macleod, “Definite Atonement,” 425. 173. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 11 (341): “Nam universalis causa salutis sive universale remedium haec duo invovit: unum, quod eiusmodi sit ut possit omnes et singulos curare et servare; alterum quod eiusmodi sit ut ad productionem huius determinati effectus in quolibet singulari homine requitat applicationem determinatam.” 174. I intentially distinguish here “savingly applied” from simply “applied.” The former denotes the actual effect of bringing someone to eternal life. The latter simply entails

188 Notes a benefit that is applied to someone on account of Christ’s death, as is given to baptized nonelect and those nonelect who are in the visible church. Cf. 4.3.1, 4.3.2, and 5.3.3 in this study.

Chapter 3 1. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:461; Cunningham, Historical Theology, 2:331ff.; Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition, 60ff., 76ff.; Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards, 187–​204; Blacketer, “Definite Atonement,” 311; Harinck, De uitgestrecktheid van de verzoening, 50; Godfrey, “Tensions,” 77–​131; Stephen Strehle, “The Extent of the Atonement within the Theological Systems of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980), 18ff. 2. P. L. Rouwendal, “Calvin’s Forgotten Classical Position on the Extent of the Atonement: About Sufficiency, Efficiency, and Anachronism,” Westminster Theological Journal 70, no. 2 (2008): 317–​35. 3. This latter point will become clear in ­chapter 5 of this study. 4. On the various editions of Ursinus’s Heidelberg Catechism lectures and Pareus’s role in their publication, see Lyle D. Bierma, An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History, and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 72n103. 5. Pareus, Explicationum Catecheticarum, 303. 6. Pareus, Explicationum Catecheticarum, 304. 7. Cf. Michael J. Lynch, “Hypothetical Universalism and Arminianism: David Pareus’ Response to the Second Remonstrant Article,” paper presented at the 67th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Atlanta, GA, 2015; Pareus, Irenicum, 142. 8. Alting, Scriptorum Theologicorum Heidelbergensium, Tomus Secundus, Problemata Theologica, pars I, p. 175: “Nostri Orthodoxi utuntur hac distinctione ad conciliandas Scripturas.” The reasons Alting denies the received distinction can be found in Heinrich Alting, Exegesis Logica et Theologica Augustanae Confessionis . . . Accessit Syllabus Controversiarum . . . (Amsterdam: Johannes Janssonius, 1652), 135. 9. Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesammtausgabe (Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1885), 3:276: “Multis autem et aliis modus isti quinque versus sunt ab aliis expositi, multum laboriose . . . Sed hec expositio violentior est paulo, quia licet Christus suam placationem pro Iuda et Iudeis efficaciter non dederit, tamen utique dedit sufficientcr, sed magis ipsi non acceperunt.” 10. John Calvin, Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. Wilhelm Baum, Eduard Cunitz, and Eduard Reuss, 59 vols. (Brunswick: Schwetscke, 1863–​1900), 55:310, 8:299, 8:336. For a discussion of Calvin’s relationship with the Lombardian formula, see esp. Rouwendal, “Calvin’s Forgotten Classical Position,” 324–​25; Hans Boersma, “Calvin and the Extent of the Atonement,” Evangelical Quarterly 64, no. 4 (1992): 333–​55, 346–​47.

Notes  189 11. Calvin, Commentarii in Epistolas canonicas, loc. 1 Jn. 2:2 [p. 62]. Cf. Girolamo Zanchi, De Christo Advocato, in Miscellaneorum Libri Tres (Neustadt an der Weinstrasse: Wilhelm Harnisius, 1603), 298. 12. Peter Martyr Vermigli, Loci Communes (London: John Kyngston, 1576), 514. 13. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 8–​9, 9–​10 (336, 339). Italics original. 14. Phillip Melanchthon, Locorum Theologicorum postrema editio absoluta Anno 1545, in Operum Omnium Reverendi Viri Philippi Melanthonis, Pars Prima (Wittenberg: John Craton, 1580), 195v; John Calvin, Commentarius In Evangelium Secundum Joannem in Harmonia Ex Evangelistis Tribus Composita . . . Eiusdem In Johannem Evangelistam Commentarius (Geneva: Eustathius Vignon, 1595), 33 [loc. Jn. 3:16]; John Calvin, In Omnes Pauli Apostoli Epostolas . . . (Geneva: Thomas Curteus, 1565), 63 [loc. Rom. 5:18]; Heinrich Bullinger, In Apocalypsim Iesu Christi . . . (Basel: Samuel Regius, 1570), Cap. V, Concio XXVIII [pp. 77–​78]; Aretius Benedictus, Commentarii in Epistolas D. Pauli ad Timoth. ad Titum, et ad Philem. facili et perspicua methodo conscripti (Morges: John le Preux, 1583), 56 [loc. 1 Tim. 2:6]; Wolfgang Musculus, Loci Communes sacrae Theologiae, iam recens recogniti et emendati (Basel: John Heruagius, 1564), De Redemptione Generis Humani [p. 151]; Girolamo Zanchi, De Praedestinatione Sanctorum in Miscellaneorum Libri Tres (Neustadt an der Weinstrasse: Wilhelm Harnisius, 1603), Thesis 13 [p. 363]. 15. GR, Letters, 190. Cf. Rudolf Gwalther, In Ioannis Apostoli et Evangelistae Epistolam Canonicam, Homiliae XXXVII (Zurich: Christopher Froschoverus, 1578), 11v–​12v; Georg Sohn, De Officio Filii Dei Incarnati . . . (Heidelberg: Jacob Mylius, 1586), XLVII; Georg Sohn, Theses de Justificatione, in Operum Georgii Sohnii, Tomus Primus (Herborn: Christopher Corvinus, 1591), 131. For citations of Christoph Pezel, see Hildebrand, Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, Auctoritates, 97–​99. 16. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 10 (339): “Nostro tamen hoc seculo Theologis quibusdam collubitum est hosce limites transilire, atque diserte sub exclusivis terminis hanc thesin tueri, Christum pro solis electis mortuum fuisse.” Emphasis Davenant. 17. E.g., note the recent claim by Ryan McGraw, a scholar of early modern Reformed theology, in his review of The Soteriology of James Ussher, Meet the Puritans (blog), August 7, 2018, http://​www.meetthepuritans.com/​blog/​book-​review-​soteriology-​ james-​ussher-​oxford: “There are a few minor points at which the author appears to overreach his conclusions slightly. For example, he lists Bullinger, Musculus, and Ursinus among authors who leaned toward hypothetical universalism (78). This is [a]‌ controversial claim that requires a bit more evidence and explanation.” 18. We are aware of the debate in scholarship regarding Calvin’s view on the extent of Christ’s work. Our own belief is that Calvin and Davenant are, in the main, consistent with each other. On Calvin’s hypothetical universalism, see esp. the two essays by David W. Ponter, “Review Essay (Part One): John Calvin on the Death of Christ and the Reformation’s Forgotten Doctrine of Universal Vicarious Satisfaction: A Review and Critique of Tom Nettles’ Chapter in Whomever He Wills,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 55, no. 1 (2012): 139–​59; David W. Ponter, “Review Essay (Part Two): John Calvin on the Death of Christ and the Reformation’s Forgotten Doctrine of Universal

190 Notes Vicarious Satisfaction: A Review and Critique of Tom Nettles’ Chapter in Whomever He Wills,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 55, no. 2 (2013): 253–​71. 19. John Calvin, Sermons Dem. Iean Caluin fur le v. liure de Moyse nommé Deuteronome (Geneva: Thomas Courteau, 1567), Sermon XXVIII [p. 158]: “Car Iesus Christ s’est offert en general à tous sans exception, pour Redempteur.” 20. Calvin, Sermons Deuteronome, Sermon XXVIII [p. 158]: “Le premier, c’est quant à ceste redemption qui nous a este acquise en la personne de culuy qui s’est exposé à la mort pour nos: qui a este fait malediction, afin de nous reconcilier à dieu son Pere. Viola le premier degré d’amour qui s’estend à tous hommes, d’autant que Iesus Christ ha les bras estendus pour appeller, & conuier grans & petis, & pour les gagner à soy.” 21. Calvin, Sermons Deuteronome, Sermon XXVIII [p. 158]. 22. Cf. John Calvin, Harmonia ex Evangelistis Tribus Composita, Matthaeo, Marco, et Luca, Commentariis Iohannis Calvini Exposita (Geneva: Eustathius Vignon, 1595), 24; Wolfgang Musculus, Commentarii in Evangelium Ioannis . . . (Basel: Johannes Hervagius, 1564), 71 [loc. Jn. 3:16]. 23. Zacharias Ursinus, Corpus Doctrinae Christianae . . . , ed. David Pareus (Hanover: Esthera Rosa, 1634), Q. XX [pp. 106–​8]. 24. Pareus, “Sententia Doctoris Paraei de quinque Remonst. Articulis,” in Acta, Pars Prima, 217: “sed declarant atque amplificant, caussam et materiam passionis, fuisse nimirum hanc, sensum sive sustinentiam irae Dei, peccato non aliquorum hominum; sed universi generis humani concitatae. Unde universitas quidem peccati et irae Dei adversus illud a Christo toleratae, efficitur.” 25. Ursinus, Corpus Doctrinae Christianae, Q. XXXVII [p. 225]. 26. Note the summary of Calvin’s position in Vitringa, Doctrina Christianae Religionis, 131: “Aliqui [including Calvin] volunt Christum sufficienter pro omnibus, et singulis hominibus mortuum esse, atque satisfecisse; efficienter vero sive efficaciter tantum pro solis electis.” 27. A notable exception is Godfrey, “Tensions,” 81–​90; Godfrey, “Reformed Thought,” 139–​44. 28. The Lutheran account of the Colloquy is summarized in Jacob Andreae, Acta Colloquij Montis Belligartensis (Tubigen: Georgius Gruppenbachius, 1587). From the Reformed side of things, see Theodore Beza, Ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgardensis Tubingae Edita, Theodori Bezae Responsionis, Pars Altera, 3rd ed. (Geneva: Ioannes le Preux, 1589). On the fascinating background to these documents, see Jill Raitt, The Colloquy of Montbéliard: Religion and Politics in the Sixteenth Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), esp. 160–​86. Cf. Armand Lods, “Les Actes du Colloque de Montbéliard (1586): Une Polémique entre Théodore de Bèze et Jacques Andreae,” Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français: Bulletin Historique et Littéraire, 46, no. 4 (1897): 194–​215. 29. On this debate, see Raymond A. Blacketer, “Blaming Beza: The Development of Definite Atonement in Reformed Theology,” in FHHCSH, 121–​41. 30. Andreae, Acta Colloquij Montis Belligartensis, 540–​41, 544, 546; cf. Beza, Ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgardensis, Pars Altera, 213ff. Contrast the way Pareus interpreted

Notes  191

31.

32.

33. 34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

this text in David Pareus, Brevis Repetitio Ex Verbo Dei Doctrinae Catholicae Ecclesiarum Palatinatus (Heidelberg: Joshua Harnisius, 1593), A3v. Beza, Ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgardensis, Pars Altera, 215: “Sicut etiam Iohannes dixit: Esse hunc agnum Dei, qui tollit peccata mundi. Num vero Christus totius mundi peccata sustulit, ut vos de singulis hominibus interpretamini?” Beza, Ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgardensis, Pars Altera, 214: “Sed hac in re tam turpiter hallucinatum fuisse D. Andream mirum non est, quem paulo post audiemus manifeste contendere Christum pro omnibus singulorum peccatus satisfecisse, nec quenquam propter alia peccata, sed propter solam incredulitatem damnari.” Beza, Ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgardensis, Pars Altera, 215. Andreae, Acta Colloquij Montis Belligartensis, 548: “Non enim ideo damnantur aeterno exitio adiudicandi, quod peccauerunt. . . . Sed ideo damnantur, quia nolunt vera fide amplecti Iesum Christum.” Cf. Beza, Ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgardensis, Pars Altera, 215 and 218: “Non ergo ideo damnantur homines, quia peccarunt . . . sed ideo damnantur, quia liberatorem respuunt.” Beza, Ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgardensis, Pars Altera, 215: “Sufficienter pro singulorum hominum peccatis satisfecit. . . . Quia vero maxima pars hominum hunc [i.e., Filius Dei] contemnit.” Cf. Andreae, Acta Colloquij Montis Belligartensis, 546. Beza, Ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgardensis, Pars Altera, 217: “Illud enim, Christus mortuus est pro omnium hominum peccatis Sufficienter, sed non Efficienter, et si recto sensu verum est, dure tamen admodum et ambigue non minus quam barbare dicitur.” Cf. 221: “Distinctionem autem illam inter SVFFICIENTER & EFFICIENTER, quam sane recte intellectam non nego, duris & ambiguis verbiis conceptam esse, nec ad quaestionem quae inter nos agitata est proximè praecedente responsione ostendi.” Cf. William Twisse, Vindiciae Gratiae, Potestatis ac Providentiae Dei, Hoc est, Ad Examen Libelli Perkinsiani de Praedestinationis modo et ordine, institutum a Jacobo Arminio . . . (Amsterdam: Joannes Janssonius, 1648), 232. Cf. Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind, 4: “But the greatest Ambiguity in our question [Whether Christ Died for All Men, and not only for the Elect?] is in the term [For].” Beza, Ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgardensis, Pars Altera, 217: “Illud enim PRO, vel consilium Patris ex quo passus est Christus, vel ipsius passionis effectum, vel potius utrumque declarat, quorum neutrum ad alios quam ad electos spectat.” Beza, Ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgardensis, Pars Altera, 217: “[Q]‌uamvis negandum non sit tanti esse hanc oblationem ut potuerit etiam pro infinitis mundis satisfacere, si plures essent mundi, et mundani omnes fide in Christum donarentur, nedum pro singulis unius mundi, nullo excepto, hominibus, si Deus eorum omnium vellet misereri.” Beza, Ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgardensis, Pars Altera, 217: “Distinctio autem illa quam iste tandem protulit inter SVFFICIENTER & EFFICIENTER, mera est tergiversatio.” Cf. pp. 218 and 221. Beza, Ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgardensis, Pars Altera, 218: “hoc etiam ausus totidem verbis (proh scelus) scribere, et aeternum ac immutabilem veritatem vocare, quod Christus NON MINUS pro DAMNATIS SIT PASSUS, crucifixus et mortuus

192 Notes et pro ipsorum peccatis satisfecerit, quam pro Petri, Pauli, et omnium Sanctorum peccatis.” Cf. Andreae, Acta Colloquij Montis Belligartensis, 548. 42. Beza, Ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgardensis, Pars Altera, 217–​18. 43. On the controversy surrounding Samuel Huber and his theology, see esp. Gottfried Adam, Der Streit um die Prädestination im ausgehenden 16. Jahrhundert: Eine Untersuchung zu den Entwürfen von Samuel Huber und Aegidius Hunnius (Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1970). 44. Samuel Huber, Compendium Thesium Samuelis Huberi, De Universali Redemptione Generis Humani. Facta per Christum Iesum, Contra Calvinistas (Tubingen: Georgius Gruppenbachius, 1590). 45. Beza, Ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgardensis, Pars prior et Pars Altera. 46. Johann Jacob Grynaeus, Thesaurus Verae et Orthodoxae Fidei: Ex Praestantissimis Theologis, adversus varias haereses, a quodam verbi Dei Ministro collectus, & in quatuor classes distributus (Basel: Conr. Waldkirch, 1587). 47. David Pareus, Rettung Der zur Newstatt an der Hardt, durch Matthaeum Harnisch, Anno LXXXVII, gedruckten Teutschen Bibel, wider D. Iacobi Andreae newlich dawider auß gesprengte vnuerschämbte Lesterungen (Neustadt an der Weinstraße: Mattheus Harnisch, 1589). 48. Daniel Tossanus Sr., Disputatio Theologica: De illo loco D. Pauli 1 Cor.15.v.22. Sicut in Adam Omnes Moriuntur: Ita et in Christo Omnes Vivificabuntur: Et de hac quaestione: An Christus pro Omnibus Sit Mortuus? (Heidelberg: Abraham Smesmannius, 1589). 49. Huber, De Universali Redemptione, Thesis 4: “alio insuper dissimulationis pallio scelus involuunt, & dicunt, Christum sufficienter pro omnibus esse mortuum, non autem efficienter.” Cf. Pareus, Rettung Der zur Newstatt an der Hardt, 96–​99. 50. Huber, De Universali Redemptione, Thesis 5: “Verum Calvinistae fabricantes sinistram & aequivocam vocabuli significationem, fucum eo simplicioribus faciunt.” 51. Huber, De Universali Redemptione, Thesis 7: “negant simpliciter, Christum peccata totius generis humani in se recipere voluisse.” Cf. Thesis 9. 52. E.g., Tossanus, Disputatio Theologica, Theses 20–​21. 53. Tossanus, Disputatio Theologica, Thesis 31. 54. Pareus, Rettung Der zur Newstatt an der Hardt, 97: “Was ist dann nu, sprichstu, der Streit? Antwort: Die Frage ist nit von der würdigkeit, sondern von der thätlichen wirckung deß Opffers Christi, das ist, nicht ob es aller unnd jeden Menschen sünde versöhnen könne, sondern ob es alle wircklich versöhne.” 55. David Pareus, “Fragmentum Orationis: De Quaestione Ad Quos Fructus Mortis Et Resurrectionis Christi pertineant: & quomodo Christus pro omnibus sit mortuus,” in Explicationum Catecheticarum D. Zachariae Ursini Silesii Absolutum Opus (Neustadt an der Weinstraße: Wilhelm Harnisch, 1598), 95: “Sed de efficacia et participatione ipsa fructuum est quaestio.” 56. Pareus, “Fragmentum Orationis,” 95: “Sed & non minus vera responsio est, qua contensiosis gratificari possumus, Christum absolute pro omnibus mortuum esse, nempe si λύτρον et meriti eius sufficientem spectes.” 57. Pareus, “Fragmentum Orationis,” 96. 58. Pareus, Rettung Der zur Newstatt an der Hardt, 97–​98.

Notes  193 59. Kimedoncius, De Redemptione Generis Humani Libri Tres, I.11 [pp. 69–​70]. 60. Cf. Pareus, “Fragmentum Orationis,” 100: “Pergunt [i.e., the Lutherans] denique: pro his omnibus et singulis, non modo quo ad sufficientam, sed et quo ad efficaciam λύτρον mortuum esse.” 61. Samuel Huber, Theses, Christum Jesum esse mortuum pro peccatis omnium hominum: Contra Novum Horrendum, atque Intolerabilem Quorundam Calvinistarum errorem . . . (Tubingen: Georgius Gruppenbachius, 1590), Thesis 65 [p. 17]. 62. Huber, Theses, Thesis 270 [p. 68]. 63. Pareus, Brevis Repetitio, B1r. Cf. Francesco Pucci, De Christi Servatoris Efficacitate in Omnibus et Singulis Hominibus, Quatenus Homines sunt . . . (Gouda: John Zassen Hoenius). 64. Johann Piscator, Disputatio Theologica de Praedestinatione: ac Nominatim de Tribus Quaestionibus Hodie Controversis . . . Opposita Disputationi Andreae Schaafmanni . . . (Herborn: Christopher Corvinus, 1595), Thesis 109: “Nam Christus pro solis electis mortuus est, idque sufficientissimo pretio redemptionis persoluto, nempe pretioso sanguine suo, sanguine nimirum illo agni immaculati, sanguine illo Filii Dei. At pro reprobis nullo modo mortuus est Christus: sive sufficienter dicas, sive efficaciter.” 65. See John Strype, The Life and Acts of Whitgift, D.D. . . . , 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1822), 2:290; Cambridge University Transactions during the Puritan Controversies, ed James Heywood and Thomas Wright, 2 vols. (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854), II.97. 66. Strype, Life and Acts of Whitgift, 2:305. 67. William Burton, An Exposition of the Lords Prayer . . . (London: The Widdow Orwin, 1594), 19. 68. Burton, Exposition of the Lords Prayer, 19. 69. Burton, Exposition of the Lords Prayer, 20. 70. Burton, Exposition of the Lords Prayer, 21. 71. Burton, Exposition of the Lords Prayer, 21. 72. The distinction being employed is between the potential sufficiency and actual sufficiency of Christ’s death. See Alting, Scriptorum Theologicorum Heidelbergensium, Tomus Secundus, Problemata Theologica, pars I, pp. 175–​76; Voetius, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum, Pars Secunda, 253–​54. Cf. Davenant’s comment in his letter to Hildebrand in Hildebrand, Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, Iudicia, 28: “Futilem illorum orationem recte a te taxatam agnosco, qui sufficientiam hujus expiatorii sacrificii, de quo loquimur, imminutum eunt hoc inepto glossemate (sufficiens esse potest pro omnibus haec mors Christi, si Deus sufficientem esse voluisset).” 73. Perkins, De Praedestinationis Modo et Ordine, 70. William den Boer, God’s Twofold Love: The Theology of Jacob Arminius (1559–​1609), trans. Albert Gootjes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 16 claims that Perkins wrote this work specifically against the Danish theologican Niels Hemmingsen’s Tractatus de Gratia Universali seu Salutari Omnibus Hominibus . . . (Copenhagen: John Alburgensis, 1591). On this Perkins quote, see Twisse’s interpretation in Vindiciae Gratiae, 618ff.

194 Notes 74. On the background to the early debates over grace and predestination in England, see esp. White, Predestination, Policy, and Polemic, 101–​23; Peter Lake, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 201–​42; Collier, Debating Perseverance, 20–​58. 75. William Perkins, A Golden Chaine, Or the Description of Theologie . . . (London: Edward Alde, 1592), ch. 52 [fols. T5vff.]. Perkins names Jacob Andreae and Niels Hemmingsen. Note that later editions of A Golden Chaine simply mention “Some late divines in Germanie.” 76. Cf. Nicholas Tyacke, Aspects of English Protestantism c. 1530–​ 1700 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), 163. Note also Andrew Willet, Synopsis Papismi, That Is, A Generall View of Papistrie . . . (London: Felix Kyngston, 1600), 784, where Willet identifies three opinions regarding the “universalitie of grace”: first, the view of Huber and Andreae; second, the view of Pucci; third, Hemmingsen and Gellius Snecanus. 77. Cf. Franciscus Gomarus, Opera Theologica Omnia . . . (Amsterdam: Johannes Janssonius, 1644), In Analysi Epistolae ad Galatas, Cap. I [pp. 90–​91]. 78. Jacob Arminius, Examen Libelli Perkinsiani de Praedestinationis Ordine et Modo in Opera Theologica (Leiden: Godefridus Basson, 1629), 745. On Arminius’s view of the extent of Christ’s satisfaction, see a nice summary in Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 124–​26. 79. Jacob Arminius, Apologia . . . Arminii adversus Articulos . . . , in Opera Theologica (Leiden: Godefridus Basson, 1629), 153. 80. Arminius, Apologia, 153. 81. Arminius, Apologia, 154. 82. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 21 (366): “Eundem errorem Hubero et Puccio multi adscribunt.” Cf. John Davenant to Samuel Ward, January 15, 1632/​3, MS Tanner 71 fol. 153, Bodleian Library, Oxford University, Oxford. 83. Arminius, Examen Libelli Perkinsiani, 747. 84. Perkins, De Praedestinationis Modo et Ordine, 19–​20: “Huius pretii solute virtus & efficacia, tum quoad meritum, tum quoad operationem, infinita est; & tamen distingui debet. Est enim vel potentialis vel actualis.” 85. Perkins, De Praedestinationis Modo et Ordine, 20: “Efficacia potentialis est, qua λύτρον in se sufficiat pro redimendis singulorum absque exceptione peccatis, etiam si essent mille mundi hominum.” 86. Perkins, De Praedestinationis Modo et Ordine, 20: “Verum si spectemus efficaciam illam actualem, λύτρον illud quoad consilium Dei, & quoad eventum pro electis tantum ac praedestinatis est solutum.” 87. Cf. ­chapter 5 of this study. This understanding agrees with Twisse’s interpretation of Perkins. See Twisse, Vindiciae Gratiae, 231–​33, 231–​32: “Nam mors Christi ex se sufficiens est iuxta Perkinsium, ut fiat pretium pro omnibus hominibus & singulis; sed tamen non fit pretium, hoc est, non offertur, neque acceptatur ut pretium pro omnibus & singulis nisi Deus voluerit. . . . Utrum vero aut se Christus obtulerit in cruce, aut Deus Pater ipsum crucifixum acceptaverit tanquam pretium pro omnibus

Notes  195 & singulis, hoc inter nos controveritur. Nos cum Perkinsio negamus, Arminius cum suis gregalibus affirmat.” Hence, along with Perkins, Twisse affirms only a mere sufficiency for all human beings but denies an ordained sufficiency in the death of Christ for all people. Therefore, Twisse is wrongly called a hypothetical universalist. Voetius’s reading of Twisse, as denying that Christ died for all human beings sufficiently, is correct. See Voetius, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum, Pars Secunda, 252. 88. Perkins, De Praedestinationis Modo et Ordine, 87: “Quum scribunt illi Christum omnes et mundum redemisse, intelligendi sunt quoad sufficientiam, et quoad communem causam, et naturam omnium communem, quam assumpsit Christus.” 89. Arminius, Examen Libelli Perkinsiani, 671: “At phrasi Theologis hactenus ignorata, qui simpliciter inter efficaciam & sufficientiam meriti Christi distinxerunt.” 90. Arminius, Examen Libelli Perkinsiani, 671. 91. Arminius, Examen Libelli Perkinsiani, 671. 92. Arminius, Examen Libelli Perkinsiani, 671: “Christi mors esset sufficiens pretium pro peccatis totius mundi & plurium mundorum, siquidem Deus voluisset illam pro omnibus hominibus offerri.” 93. Arminius, Examen Libelli Perkinsiani, 671: “Si enim non est λύτρον oblatum & solutum pro omnibus, jam non est λύτρον, nedum sufficiens pro omnibus. Λύτρον enim est, quoad oblatum & solutum est. Posset itaque mors Christi dici sufficiens redimendis omnium hominium peccatis, si Deus illum pro omnibus mori voluisset: at λύτρον sufficiens dici nequit, nisi reipsa pro omnibus sit solutum.” 94. Arminius, Examen Libelli Perkinsiani, 671: “Quare Dominus Bèze ἀκυρολογίον notat in ista distinctione, propteria quod peccatum simpliciter sufficiens dicitur, quod non est tale, nisi sub hypothesi iam explicata.” Cf. 736. 95. Cf. Twisse, Vindiciae Gratiae, esp. 230–​33 and 618–​22. 96. Note, e.g., Alting, Scriptorum Theologicorum Heidelbergensium, Tomus Secundus, Problemata Theologica, pars I, p. 174; Voetius, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum, Pars Secunda, 252; Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 558; Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 43 (414); Henrik Brand, ed., Collatio Scripto Habita Hagae . . . (Zierikzee: John Hellenius, 1615), 173. 97. Godfrey, “Tensions,” 10–​69, esp. 35–​65. For nice summaries of this period of Dutch religious history leading up to Dordt, see Thomas Scott, trans., The Articles of the Synod of Dort (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856), 67–​168; A. W. Harrison, The Beginnings of Arminianism to the Synod of Dort (London: University of London Press, 1926); BDSD, xvii–​103; W. B. Patterson, King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 260–​92; Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg, eds., Revisiting the Synod of Dort (1618–​1619) (Leiden: Brill, 2011). 98. On the background and the various secondary literature related to the Hague Conference, see esp. den Boer, God’s Twofold Love, 211–​17; den Boer also helpfully summarizes many of the arguments made at the Conference on 217–​77. 99. A Dutch version of the Remonstrant Articles of 1610 was published in Schriftelicke Conferentie, gehovden in s’Gravenhaghe inden Iare 1611, tusschen sommighe

196 Notes Kercken-​dienaren: Aengaende de Godlicke Praedestinatie metten aencleven van dien. Ter Ordonnantie vande Ed. Mog. Heeren Staten van Hollandt ende West-​Vrieslandt Ghedruckt (s’Graven-​Hage: Hillebrandt Jacobsz, 1612), 7–​9. A Latin edition of the Articles can be found in Petrus Bertius, ed., Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis (Leiden: John Patius, 1615), 8–​10. 100. There were two accounts of the conference published in 1615: Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis and Brand, Collatio Scripto Habita Hagae. The former is the edition from which Davenant generally cites; the latter is most often cited at Dordt. For more, see BDSD, 62n40, 218n110. Davenant was indeed aware of both editions and that there were differences between the two. Cf. BDSD, 220: “(or ‘medium’ as Brandius hath it, Pag. 195).” 101. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 9: “Proinde Iesum Christum Mundi salvatorem pro omnibus et singulis hominibus mortuum esse: omnibusque per mortem crucis promeritum reconciliationem et remissionem peccatorum: ita tamen ut nemo remissionis illius reipsa particeps fiat, praeter credentes: idque etiam secundum verba Evangelii. Iohannis, III, 6. Ita Deus dilexit Mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum dederit, ut quisquis credit in eum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam. Et Epistola priore Ioannis Cap. II. v. 2. Ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris, nec pro nostris tantum, sed etiam pro totius Mundi peccatis.” Note that Brand, Collatio Scripto Habita Hagae, 9 has a somewhat different wording after the mortuum esse in Bertius: “atque id ita quidem, ut omnibus per mortem Christi reconciliationem et peccatorum remissionem impetrarit, ea tamen conditione, ut nemo illa peccatorum remissione reipsa fruatur praeter hominem fidelem.” 102. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 123. 103. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 123–​24, 139, 156–​57. 104. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 124. 105. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 139: “Indicant quoque quorundam Remonstrantium scripta, se per acquisitam istam reconciliationem pro singulis hominibus, intelligere cum novis apostatis Lutheranis, universalem quandam restitutionem omnium et singulorum hominum, nemine excepto, et universalem eorum restitutionem in statum gratiae reconciliationis.” 106. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 125, 126–​27. 107. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 124, 129–​30. 108. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 131. 109. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 132. 110. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 133, 135. 111. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 134. 112. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 136. 113. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 136–​37. 114. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 138. 115. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 139: “Caeterum, quum in Collatione illa quidam quoq[ue] Remonstrantium ostenderint, se illam universalem restitutionem non admittere.” 116. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 139. 117. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 141.

Notes  197 Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 146. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 148. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 154. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 154–​55. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 156. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 156. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 159. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 161ff. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 162–​63. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 163: “Et quemadmodum Medicus quis dici potest pharmaca sua omnibus aegris praeparasse, sine discrimine, aut respectu an omnes aegri iis usari sint, an secus.” 128. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 163. 129. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 163. 130. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 164. 131. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 164: “Ipsa quoque particular est, mortuus est, apud ipsos sumitur pro esset, mortuus esset, nimirum, si patris consilium, voluntas & beneplacitum fuisset, ut Christus pro omnibus & singulis mortuus fuisset.” 132. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 164. 133. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 165–​66. 134. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 166–​ 67 [improperly paginated: 157]. 135. “Brevis et Simplex Declaratio Status Controversiae circa quinque Articulos doctrinae . . . ,” in Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, ed. Petrus Bertius (Leiden: John Patius, 1615), 124–​67 [2nd pagination], 128–​29. 136. “Brevis et Simplex Declaratio Status Controversiae,” 129. Cf. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 26–​27 (377–​379). 137. “Brevis et Simplex Declaratio Status Controversiae,” 130 [mispaginated: 120]. Note the slightly different wording in Brand, Collatio Scripto Habita Hagae, 470: “An Iesu Christi passio et Mors secundum Dei consilium et voluntatem effectum suum ad reconciliationem cum Deo sortiatur.” 138. “Brevis et Simplex Declaratio Status Controversiae,” 142–​43. 139. “Brevis et Simplex Declaratio Status Controversiae,” 144. 140. “Brevis et Simplex Declaratio Status Controversiae,” 146. 141. “Brevis et Simplex Declaratio Status Controversiae,” 146. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127.

Chapter 4 1. E.g., Godfrey, “Tensions”; Platt, “Eirenical Anglicans”; Platt, “Les Anglais à Dordrecht”; Platt, “The British Delegation”; Dewar, “The British Delegation at the Synod of Dort: Assembling and Assembled”; Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, 87–​105; White, Predestination, Policy, and Polemic, 175–​202; BDSD; Todd, “Justifying God”; Kang, “John Davenant.”

198 Notes 2. A notable exception is Jonathan D. Moore, “James Ussher’s Influence on the Synod of Dort,” in Revisiting the Synod of Dort (1618–​1619), edited by Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 163–​79. Godfrey, “Tensions,” 125–​29 gives a nice summary of Ussher’s two letters, though he concludes (on the basis of Josiah Allport) that “Davenant and Ussher did not know of each other before the Synod” (129). This claim by Allport and Godfrey contrasts with Ussher’s nineteenth-​century biographer, Charles Elrington. See Charles Richard Elrington, “The Life of James Ussher, D.D., Archbishop of Armagh,” in James Ussher, The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher D.D., Lord Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland, 17 vols. (Dublin: Hodges, Smith, 1864), 1:29. 3. Matthew Barrett, The Grace of Godliness: An Introduction to Doctrine and Piety in the Canons of Dort (Kitchener, Ontario: Joshua Press, 2013), 58. 4. Barrett, The Grace of Godliness, 62. 5. Gibson and Gibson, “Sacred Theology,” 33. 6. Gibson and Gibson, “Sacred Theology,” in 42–​53, 43n30. This is ironic, especially given the quote by J. C. Ryle: “The absence of accurate definitions is the very life of religious controversy” (42). 7. Gatiss, “The Synod of Dort,” 143–​63. 8. Gatiss, “The Synod of Dort,” 143: “Definite atonement achieved confessional status at the Synod of Dort.” 9. Gatiss, “The Synod of Dort,” 162–​63, 162. 10. This interpretation of Gatiss has been confirmed in personal correspondence with him. 11. Gibson and Gibson, “Sacred Theology,” 35. 12. The official printed version of the British suffrage can be found in the Acta, Pars Secunda, 3–​14 (Art. 1), 78–​83 (Art. 2), 127–​36 (Arts. 3 and 4), 188–​205 (Art. 5). It was also published in England in 1626, 1627, 1629 (English translation), and 1633 (which reorders the theses of the 2nd Article). See BDSD, 225–​93. 13. BDSD, xxv. 14. Illustrative of the theological influence the British divines had on the Synod on topics not related to Second Main Doctrine, cf. J. V. Fesko, “Lapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dort,” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism, ed. Mark Jones and Michael A. Haykin (Oakville, CT: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2011), 99–​123; Collier, Debating Perseverance, 59–​92. 15. Patterson, King James VI and I, 260–​92. 16. BDSD, 6–​8. 17. BDSD, 10–​12. 18. BDSD, 92–​94. 19. This is reflected in Ward’s correspondence with Bishop Arthur Lake after meeting with the other delegates in London before departing for Dordrecht. See BDSD, 94–​102. 20. James Ussher, The Judgement Of the Late Arch-​Bishop of Armagh, And Primate of Ireland, 1. Of the Extent of Christs death, and satisfaction, &c. . . . , ed. Nicholas Bernard

Notes  199 (London: John Crook, 1657), 1–​18. It was reprinted in Ussher, Works, 12:547–​60. Cf. Moore, “James Ussher’s Influence,” 166–​68. 21. Ussher, Judgement, A3v. 22. Cf. Richard Snoddy, The Soteriology of James Ussher: The Act and Object of Saving Faith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 54; Moore, “James Ussher’s Influence,” 171n37. 23. Richard Baxter, Relinquiae Baxterianae: Or, Mr. Richard Baxter’s Narrative . . . , ed. Matthew Sylvester (London: T. Parkhurst, J. Robinson, J. Lawrence, J. Dunton, 1696), lib. I, 206. Cf. Baxter, Certain Disputations of Right to Sacraments, C2r: “Dr [George] Kendal can bear witness that he was present, once when he heard [Ussher] own this judgement of Universal Redemption in the middle way, and intimated that Dr Davenant and Dr Preston were minded of it by him.” 24. Ussher, Judgement, 2. 25. Ussher, Judgement, 2. 26. Ussher, Judgement, 2–​3. 27. Cf. the analysis of this Ussher letter and the following one by Moore, “James Ussher’s Influence,” 168–​73. See also Williams, “The Definite Intent of Penal Substitutionary Atonement,” in FHHCSH, 462–​68. Note my response to Williams’s interpretation of Ussher’s hypothetical universalism in Lynch, “Quid Pro Quo Satisfaction?,” 53–​55. 28. Ussher, Judgement, 6. 29. Ussher, Judgement, 6. 30. On ipso facto remission, see Lynch, “Quid Pro Quo Satisfaction?” 31. Beza, Ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgardensis, Pars Altera, 219: “satisfactio culpam omnem necessario aboleat.” 32. Cf. Acta, Pars Secunda, 100; William Ames, Rescriptio scholastica et brevis ad Nicolai Grevinchovii responsum illud prolixum . . . (Amsterdam: Henry Laurentius, 1615), 31–​ 34 (31 is mispaginated as 21). 33. Zacharias Ursinus, Explicationum Catecheticarum (Neustadt an der Weinstraße: Wilhelm Harnisch, 1598), 142. 34. Ursinus, Explicationum Catecheticarum, 294. 35. Ussher, Judgement, 15. 36. Ussher, Judgement, 15. 37. Ussher, Judgement, 19–​20. 38. Ussher, Judgement, 20, 21. 39. This point was made some years ago by Lee Gatiss’s excellent, albeit brief, discussion of impetration in “A Deceptive Clarity? Particular Redemption in the Westminster Standards,” Reformed Theological Review 69, no. 3 (2010), 180–​96, esp. 186–​89. Cf. Michael Lynch, “Confessional Orthodoxy and Hypothetical Universalism: Another Look at the Westminster Confession of Faith,” in Beyond Calvin: Essays on the Diversity of the Reformed Tradition, ed. W. Bradford Littlejohn and Jonathan Tomes (Lincoln, NE: Davenant Trust, 2017), 127–​48. 40. Cunningham, Historical Theology, 2:328. 41. Cunningham, Historical Theology, 2:329.

200 Notes 42. John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, 4 vols. (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976–​82), 4:256. 43. Cunningham, Historical Theology, 2:333. 44. Cf. Sinclair Ferguson, “Blessèd Assurance, Jesus Is Mine? Definite Atonement and the Cure of Souls,” in FHHCSH, 607–​31, 629n94. 45. “Brevis et Simplex Declaratio Status Controversiae,” 130 (mispaginated: 120). 46. Ussher, Judgement, 21. 47. Cf. Ames, Rescriptio scholastica, 6: “non potuit igitur impetrata redemptio non aliquibus etiam applicari.” 48. Snoddy, The Soteriology of James Ussher, 55–​56. 49. Robert Letham, The Work of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 229. This claim may be true relative to the French hypothetical universalists, but it is absolutely wrong relative to the English hypothetical universalists. Cf. Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement, 542–​43. 50. Ussher, Judgement, 30; Ambrose of Milan, Quintus Tomus Divi Ambrosii Mediolanensis episcopi operum, complectens scholiorum seu Commentariorum in Evangelium Lucae libros X . . . (Basel, 1567), VI.7 [p. 79]. In translation: Ambrose of Milan, Commentary of Saint Ambrose on the Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. Ide M. Ni Riain (Dublin: Halcyon Press, 2001), VI.25 [p. 164]; Cf. Snoddy, “The Sources of James Ussher’s Patristic Citations,” 107–​29. 51. Ussher, Judgement, 30. 52. Ussher, Judgement, 34. 53. This logic is often assumed to be the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement itself. See Lynch, “Quid Pro Quo Satisfaction?” 54. Ussher, Judgement, 35–​36. 55. Ursinus, Explicationum Catecheticarum, 142. 56. Ussher, Judgement, 37. 57. In this sense Moore is correct to write about the impact of Ussher’s two letters, “Thus the lines of a new theological position for the English Puritan brotherhood were becoming more clear. For their benefit, Ussher had carefully outlined a draft statement of what we may usefully call ‘hypothetical universalism’ ” (“James Ussher’s Influence,” 170). Yet to suppose that it is altogether “a new theological position” among the Reformed is entirely inappropriate given the language of earlier English and Continental Reformed theologians. 58. Moore, “James Ussher’s Influence,” 169. 59. Voetius, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum, Pars Secunda, 252. 60. BDSD, 71n142. 61. John Overall, “Sententia Ecclesiae Anglicanae de Praedestinatione & Capitibus annexis, ab eodem (uti fertur) authore, jussu Regis Serenissimi conscripta,” in DD, Ii6r–​Kk2r: “tam plana est et ubique sibi constans Ecclesiae nostrae Sententia, Pro omnibus omnino hominibus, sive pro omnibus omnium hominum peccatis Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum mortuum esse, ut mirandum sit, ullos ex nostris ausos esse id in controversiam vocare.” Cf. John Overall, “The judgement of the Church of England concerning divine predestination,” in BDSD, 74–​84.

Notes  201 62. Overall, “Sententia Ecclesiae Anglicanae de Praedestinatione,” Kkr; Calvin, In Omnes Pauli Apostoli Epostolas, 947 [loc. Heb. 9:28]. 63. Overall, “Sententia Ecclesiae Anglicanae de Praedestinatione,” Kkr. 64. Cf. BDSD, 201. 65. Platt, “The British Delegation,” 17. 66. BDSD, xxviii–​xxxii. 67. John Davenant to Samuel Ward, March 6, 1629, Tanner MS 72 fol. 312, Bodleian Library, Oxford University, Oxford. John Davenant, Animadversions written by the Right Reverend Father in God, John, Lord Bishop of Sarisbury, upon a treatise intituled, Gods love to mankinde (Cambridge: Roger Daniels, 1641), 10. Note that there are two different printings of Davenant’s Animadversions from the same printer in the same year from the same city. There is also a printing from London (John Partridge) in the same year. 68. BDSD, 94–​96. 69. BDSD, 96–​97. 70. BDSD, 97–​102. 71. GR, Letters, 96–​97. 72. GR, Letters, 101. Note, however, that Balcanquhall is not the best source of information regarding the internal proceedings of the British delegation. See Anthony Milton, “A Distorting Mirror: The Hales and Balcanquahall Letters and the Synod of Dordt,” in Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–​1619), ed. Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 135–​61. 73. GR, Letters, 101. For Martinius’s views on the extent of Christ’s atoning work, see: Acta, Pars Secunda, 103–​8. 74. GR, Letters, 180. 75. Cf. Todd, “Justifying God.” 76. For a generally reliable summary of the suffrage of each foreign delegation on the Second Main Point of Doctrine, see Godfrey, “Tensions,” 188–​221. Cf. Stephen Strehle, “The Extent of the Atonement and the Synod of Dort,” Westminster Theological Journal 51, no. 1 (1989): 1–​23. 77. BDSD, 102n369. 78. Cf. BDSD, 218n110. Given that one copy is in Davenant’s handwriting, we will designate him as its author, though it should be presumed that the whole delegation had a hand in writing this document. 79. GR, Letters, 186. 80. GR, Letters, 186. 81. Acta, Pars Secunda, 78. 82. Acta, Pars Secunda, 79. 83. Acta, Pars Secunda, 79. 84. GR, Letters, 187. 85. GR, Letters, 187. 86. Acta, Pars Secunda, 79. Cf. 128–​30. 87. Cf. Davenant, Sententia de Gallicana controversia, in DD, fol. Jj1r (566–​68). 88. GR, Letters, 187.

202 Notes 89. GR, Letters, 187. Note that even John Forbes, who was not a hypothetical universalist, affirmed the same in his Instructiones Historico-​Theologicae, VIII.16 [p. 408]: “Nota, nos non dissentire, quin etiam Apostatis Christus morte sua meruerit omnem illam gratiam quam consequunti sunt, posteaque suo vitio sibi inutilem effecerunt, ut vocationem, baptismam, & illam illuminationem, illum gustum doni coelestis, illam participationem Spiritus Sancti, &c. de quibus ad Hebr. 6. assentiumur etiam eos recta fide & pietate accessisse.” 90. BDSD, 219n116. 91. Acta, Pars Secunda, 80. 92. Ames and Grevinchovius, Dissertatio Theologica, 8, 14. 93. Note that Davenant sees the first article as a corollary of the second. Cf. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 87 (514). 94. Ames and Grevinchovius, Dissertatio Theologica, 8–​9: “neque enim applicatio finis impetrationis proprie fuit, sed ius et potestas applicando pro liberrimo suo placito quibus vel qualibus vellet.” 95. GR, Letters, 184. 96. GR, Letters, 185. 97. GR, Letters, 185. 98. Cf. Gatiss, The Synod of Dort,” 143–​63; Moore, “The Extent of the Atonement,” 144–​48. 99. John Davenant to Samuel Ward, November 4, 1628, Tanner MS 72 fol. 298r, Bodleian Library, Oxford University, Oxford. 100. Note that Kang, “John Davenant,” does work a little with some of the Ward manuscripts that trace this narrative. 101. Donald Sinnema, “The Drafting of the Canons of Dordt: A Preliminary Survey of Early Drafts and Related Documents,” in Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–​1619), ed. Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 291–​311. Dr. Sinnema also provided help in obtaining MSS invaluable for this study. 102. The title is “Theologorum Magnae Britanniae de Canonibus constituendis consilium.” Remarks on the Second Article can be found in Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 16v. 103. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 16v. 104. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 16v. 105. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 16v. 106. GR, Letters, 189. Cf. Davenant, Animadversions, 331. 107. GR, Letters, 189. 108. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 16v. 109. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 16v.

Notes  203 110. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 16v. 111. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 16v. 112. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 16v. 113. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 16v. 114. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 16v. 115. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 16v. 116. Sinnema, “The Drafting of the Canons of Dort,” 297–​98. 117. These delegates were Johannes Bogerman, Hermannus Faukelius, Jacobus Rolandus, George Carleton, Jean Diodati, Abraham Scultetus, Johannes Polyander, Antonius Walaeus, and Jacobus Trigland. 118. Cited in Sinnema, “The Drafting of the Canons of Dort,” 299n32: “Les Anglois ont mis tant de difficultés en la confection des canons qu’ il nous a falu perdre presque trois semaines de temps.” 119. This is a concern throughout Davenant’s De Morte Christi e.g., 9–​10 (339): “Id unum observari velim, orthodoxos nostros Doctores electionis et reprobationis doctrinam ita explicasse ut decretum de eligendis singularibus quibusdam personis ad infallibilem vitae aeternae consecutionem, aliisque praetereundis, universalitem redemtionis per mortem Christi peractae non infringeret.” 120. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 25r: “Explicata sufficientia mortis christi in se considerata putamus non debere nos protenus ad arcanus illud electionis at reprobationis consilium prosilire.” 121. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 24r: “Acerbissima mors Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi Dei et hominis filii per quam ille maledictio in cruce factus est, plenissima, per perfectissima et unica est pro peccatis mundi satisfactio in sese infiniti valoris ac pretii et sufficientissima ad omnes et singulos homines redimendos eorumque peccata expianda.” 122. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 24r: “Verum consilium et voluntas Dei patris filium unigenitum in maledictam mortem crucis tradentis et voluntas filii eam subeuntis constantissima atque gratissima haec fuit ut efficaciter moveretur pro electorum et credentium universitate sibique per sanguinem crucis.” 123. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 25r. 124. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 25r: “porro in re tanti momenti aequius esset nos ab exemplo Christi, et praxi Apostolorum quam a privato nostro sensu huius doctrinae explicandae modum petere.”

204 Notes 125. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 25r. Cf. thesis 2 and 3 in Ward L2, fol. 16v (pre-​committee British theses on article 2) and thesis 2 and 3 in “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward, L2, fol. 27r (early British[?]‌version of first committee draft on article 2). 126. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 25r: “Ab hac hostia quae in sese est infiniti valores et pretii, Deus peremptorio Decreto exclusit omnos Angelos malos ita ut sub nulla conditione aut proponi illis aut applicari possit; exclusit etiam homines qui in impietate et infidelitate vitam suam transegerunt, atque in eandem conditionem cum Angelis malis transierunt.” Cf. fol. 27r (thesis 2). 127. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 25r: “Verum sic Deus dilexit humanus genus ut quemvis hominem dum hic vivitur credentem in Mediatorem qui hanc sufficientissimam hostiam pro peccatis mundi tollendis Deo obtulit, remissione peccatorum et vita aeterna donare decreverit.” 128. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 25r: “Non obstante hac Dei πιλανθρωπία innumeri ex iis quibus in Evangelio remissio peccatorum et vita aeterna offertur, spernunt adversas seipsos hoc consilium Dei, maneant suo vitio obdurati in peccatis et infidelitate sua, atque tandem pereunt non defectu hostiae, sed propria hac incredulitate contemptu evangelii, et sanguinis Christi conculcatione.” 129. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 25r: “Ne autem haec sufficientissima et pretiosissima mors Christi incassum cederet, fuit singulare consilium et specialis voluntantas Dei patris filium unigentum.” Cf. fol. 27r (thesis 4). 130. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 25v; cf. fol. 24r. 131. Cf. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 24r: “Ad scripturae dicta quod attinet quae Christum pro omnibus mortuum et propitiationem pro totius mundi peccatis esse assurunt ea facta scripturarum collatione vel ad quosvis homines et populos indiscriminatim (quemadmodum etiam indiscriminatim et promiscue quibusvis Christus crucifixus praedicatur) vel ad universitatem salvandorum hoc est ad mundum Ecclesiae et credentium cum prisca ecclesia, ea imprimis [sic] quae adversus Pelagianam pravitatem luctata est referimus haud quoquam vero efficaciam vivifici sacrificii Christi ad eos extendimus pro quibus ipse noster sacerdos se iamiam pro peccatis hominum oblaturus, in sua sacerdotali oratione ne orare quidem voluit.” 132. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 25v: “Non existimamus necessarium in Canonibus loca scripturae ex professo interpretari.” 133. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 25v: “nullum interpretationem admittere possumus, quae excludat

Notes  205 illam Dei ordinationem a πιλανθρωπία Dei manantem, secundum quam omnibus hominibus in hac vita conceditur quod Diabolis et damnatis negatur, nempe modus sive medius quo possint si credant evadere condemnationem.” 134. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 25v: “agnoscimus quaedam loca quae de morte christi loquuntur, ad universitatem salvandorum sive electorum proprie spectare.” 135. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 25v: “ea autem sunt, non quae simpliciter narrant Christum pro omnibus mortuum, sed quae mortem Christi complicatam cum speciali intentione efficacis applicationis denotant.” 136. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 25v: “numquam inter eorum errores posuit christum pro omnibus et non pro solis electis fuisse mortuum.” 137. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 25v: “Salvatorem nostrum non fuisse crucifixum pro totius mundi redemptione; quam opinionem illi nunquam pro sua agnoverunt, sed semper[?]‌ tanquam calumniam repulerunt.” 138. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 25v: “Quod idem patres orthodoxi ultro fatebantur etiam non-​electis parvulis remissum fuisse in baptismo[?]‌Originale peccatum, per sanguinem Christi in cruce effusum.” 139. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, 25v: “Haec obscure et improprie enuntiantur.” Cf. 24r: “Dicta scripturae de Christo nobis dando et in mortem pro nobis tradendo sunt primaria et fundamentalis novi foederis promissio fides etiam salvifica et caetera electis propria spiritus sancti dona non nisi per mortem Christi nobis sunt parta.” 140. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fols. 24r–​24v. 141. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 26r: “curiosa, erronea, et inanis potius derenda est quam blasphema.” 142. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 26r: “Nos arbitramur satius esse eiusmodi spinosas et inutiles speculationes.” 143. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 26r: “putamus id breviter faciendum, atque simul cavendum ne aliquid damnetur, quod commodum sensum admittat.” 144. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 24v: “Qui docent Christum hactenus tantum Patri sua morte pro peccatis satisfecisse sive universum genus humanum hactenus Patri reconciliasse ut Patri per eam sit acquisitum jus, potestas, velleitas, vel etiam plenaria voluntas denuo cum hominibus agendi: et Novum Foedus cum iis innuendi[?]‌” 145. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 26r: “Certe negari non debet Christi morte hoc effectum esse, et Deus

206 Notes Pater salva sua iustitia vindicativa possit et velit cum hominibus agere, idque sub conditionibus N. foederis.” 146. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 24v: “Postremo famosam illam impetrationis et applicationis distinctionem ex sensu novatorum intellectam qua innuunt mortis Christi efficaciam ab hominis arbitrio pendere Synodus reiicit.” 147. Cf. Pareus’s discussion of the ambiguity of the term “impetration” and in what sense it might be said that Christ impetrated remission of sins and reconciliation for all in Acta, Prima Pars, 214–​16. See also Bishop George Carlton’s letter to Sir Dudley Carlton, February 8, 1618/​9, in GR, Letters, 181: “As where the Remonstrants have a Doctrine from Arminius, that, Redemptio impetrata is communis, but not applicata; Whereupon it followeth that impetratio is generalis; which thing soundeth as unsound in the ears of men: Dr. W[ard] deviseth a word to help this: for he will not say that impetratio is general, but impetrabilitas is general.” 148. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 26v: “at ipsam distinctionem ita ex Theologia eliminare ut negemus modum reconciliationis impetratum, etiam respectu illorum qui suo vitio applicatae reconciliationis nunquam fiunt participes, nec vero possumus nec debemus.” 149. Cf. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 58 (447). 150. Cf. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 21 (366). 151. Cf. Davenant, who grounds the actual impetration of salvation for the elect upon the special intercession of Christ, in De Morte Christi, in DD, 95 (532). 152. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 26 (377). 153. Drafting Committee member Jean Diodati said that the Canons were “renouvelés pour contenter quelques uns des Anglois et deux de Breme.” Quoted in Nicolas Fornerod, “ ‘The Canons of the Synod Had Shot Off the Advocate Head’: A Reappraisal of the Genevan Delegation at the Synod of Dordt,” in Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–​1619), ed. Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 181–​215, 212. 154. These new articles, making up the second committee draft, can be found in Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 29r. 155. Cf. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 26r and Ward L2, fol. 31r (ad I). 156. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, 31r: “Hactenus patri reconciliasse] hactenus tantum patri reconciliasse.” Note that in Caspar Sibelius’s journal (Caspar Sibelius, Annotationes ad Synodum Dordracenam, GAD150 MS 1113, fol. 98r, Regionaal Archief, Dordrecht), his draft of the second article adds the tantum earlier in the thesis (“hactenus tantum Patri sua morte pro peccatis satisfecisse, sive universum genus humanum hactenus Patri reconciliasse”). It is possible that Sibelius mistakenly put the tantum in the first clause as opposed to the second. Yet there are other small differences between the amendments of the first draft dictated to the delegations (cf. Ward L2, fol. 31r) which formed the second committee draft and Sibelius’s copy of the second committee

Notes  207 draft. It is difficult to know why these small differences exist. See William Ames, Anti-​Synodalia Scripta, vel Animadversiones . . . (Amsterdam: Guilielmus Blaeus, 1633), 178: The Remonstrants “(sicut saepius iam notavimus) Christi mortis non alium finem statuunt, quam ut Deus possit ac velit cum homnibus agere de salute.” 157. Iudicium Synodi Nationalis, Reformatarum Ecclesiarum Belgicarum, habitae Dordrechti, Anno 1618. & 1619 . . . de Quinque Doctrinae Capitibus in Ecclesiis Belgicis Controversis (Dordrecht: Iohannes Berewout and Franciscus Bosselaer, 1619), 38. Italics added: “Non fuisse hunc finem mortis Christi, ut novum gratiae foedus suo sanguine reipsa sanciret, sed tantum, ut nudum jus Patri acquireret, quodcunque foedus, vel gratiæ, vel operum, cum hominibus denuo ineundi.” 158. Iudicium Synodi Nationalis, 39. Italics added: “Christum per suam satisfactionem, nullis certo meruisse ipsam salutem et fidem, qua haec Christi satisfactio ad salutem efficaciter applicetur, sed tantum Patri acquisivisse potestatem vel plenariam voluntatem, de novo cum hominibus agenda.” 159. E.g., see Bishop George Carlton’s letter to Sir Dudley Carlton, February 8, 1618/​9, in GR, Letters, 180–​81. 160. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 31r: “Qui impetrationis et applicationis distinctionem usurpant, ut incautis et imperitis hanc opinionem instillent Deum quantum ad se attinet, omnibus hominibus ex aequo ea beneficia voluisse, quae per mortem Christi acquiruntur.” 161. Note the wording of the British suffrage (Art II. Rejs. I and II). Rejection II considered this an erroneous opinion: “That it was the proper and entire end of Christs death, that he might purchase right and power unto God the Father, to save men upon what conditions he would.” 162. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 29r: “quocirca postulat eius iustitia, quam abnegare non potest.” 163. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 28v: “postulat autem eius iustitia (prout se in verbo revelavit).” Cf. fol. 29v. 164. Cf. Thesis I in Iudicium Synodi Nationalis, 33. 165. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 28v: “Caeterum promissio evangelii est ut quisquis credit in Christum crucifixum non pereat sed habeat vitam aeternam, quae promissio omnibus hominibus et populis, ad quos Deus pro suo beneplacito mittit evangelium, promiscue et indiscriminatim annunciari et proponi debet cum resipiscentiae et fidei mandato.” 166. Cf. Thesis V in Iudicium Synodi Nationalis, 35. 167. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 28v: “Ut ex merito eiusdem mortis fidem perseverantem iuxta aeternum suum propositum efficaciter donaret, eosdemque solos ad vitam aeternam infallibiliter perduceret.” 168. Iudicium Synodi Nationalis, 36: “ad eos solos fide justificante donandos, et per eam ad salutem infallibiliter perducedos.”

208 Notes 169. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 29r: “Nam ut haec pretiosissimum Christi mors non esset irrita hoc fuit singulare consilium et gratiosissime voluntas, atque intentio Dei, ut mors filii.” 170. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 28v: “Fuit enim hoc Dei Patris liberrimum consilium et gratiosissima voluntas atque intentio ut mors filii.” 171. Cf. Thesis VIII in Iudicium Synodi Nationalis, 36. 172. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 28v: “Quamvis enim filii Dei quoad dignitatem pretii et sufficientiam mortuus est per omnibus, fuit tamen hoc Dei patris liberrimum consilium et gratiosissima voluntas atque intentio.” 173. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 30v. 174. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 30v. 175. This may be why Sibelius’s second committee draft (Annotationes ad Synodum Dordracenam, GAD150 MS 1113, fol. 98r) has the tantum in this clause, but not the tantum that was suggested and (apparently incorporated) into the second committee draft by the British, noted above. 176. Sinnema, “The Drafting of the Canons of Dordt,” 304. 177. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 30v. 178. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 30v. 179. Cf. ­chapter 7 of this study. 180. Cf. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 12r. 181. Sinnema, “The Drafting of the Canons of Dordt,” 302–​3. 182. Quoted in Sinnema, “The Drafting of the Canons of Dordt,” 299n32: “Nous sommes après à bastir nos canons ou decrets synodaux. Il y a quinze jours que nous y travaillons 7 et 8 heures du jour avec un ennui et fascherie nonpareille, se trouvant en ce dernier acte ce qu’on avoit jamais experimenté jusques à present, asçavoir beaucoup d’opiniastreté, de scrupulosité et de bigiarrerie en fait de doctrine mesmes. Deux docteurs anglois, Davenantius et Wardus, nous font cete moleste. Ils montrent en apparence consentement ès choses fondamentales, cependent veulent à force inserer ou laisser des points du tout dangereux et où eux seuls, avec Breme, dissentent des autres. Mais on ne veut plus ceder et eux refusant de signer autrement.” Cf. the letter in the same footnote. 183. Quoted in Sinnema, “The Drafting of the Canons of Dordt,” 299n32: “Mais on ne veut plus ceder et eux refusant de signer autrement.” 184. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 49r. 185. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 49r: “Porro, si contra hanc Chimaeram pugnare nobis necesse sit,

Notes  209 debemus eam non pro nostro arbitrio, sed ex mente Authoris, populo proponere, et exhibere, quod minime factum est.” 186. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 49r: “at iste docet in aeternis Dei decretis, secundum nostrum modum considerandi.” Cf. Davenant, De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, in DD, 108: “utcunque omnes actus in mente et voluntate Divina sint aeterni, et proinde ne levissimo quidem prioritatis et posterioritatis momento separati; tamen ex parte ipsarum rerum quae Deus intelligit et decrevit signa quaedam prioritatis et posterioritatis distingui possunt, secundum nostrum modum intelligendi.” 187. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 49r: “id tamen ab omne aeternitate ratum et fixum intelligitur.” 188. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 49r: “licet abstineamus ab hisce curiosis disquisitionibus.” 189. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 49r: “Stabilito hoc canone, velimus nolimus, in hasce quaestiunculas obscurissimas, ineptissimas, inutilissimas pertrahemur.” 190. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 49r: “non est e more Synodorum, neque e dignitate.” 191. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 49r. 192. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 49r: “Si quis doceat proprium et integrum finem mortis Christi fuisse, ut Deo Patri acquireret nudum jus sive meram potestatem salvandi homines, sub quibus vellet, sive fidei sive opum conditionibus; ac nullis meruisse ipsam salutem, fidemque, qua haec mors Christi efficaciter ad salutem applicetur, sed ex libero hominum arbitrio pendere, quod quidam credant, et serventur. Hi enim de morte Christi abjecte nimis sentiunt, primarium eius morte intentum ac partum beneficium nullatenus agnoscunt, et Pelagianum errorem ab inferis revocant.” 193. Cf. Rejs. 2 and 3 in Iudicium Synodi Nationalis, 38–​39. 194. Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 30v: “qui docunt ad idoneitatem ac proinde ad sufficientiam pretii, naturae nostrae similitudinem in Christo non fuisse necessariam.” Cf. Sibelius, Annotationes ad Synodum Dordracenam, GAD150 MS 1113, fol. 98v. 195. These complaints can be found in GR, Letters, 144, 149. 196. GR, Letters, 149: “quidam Patres, et nonnulli Doctores reformati putent illam naturae similitudinem hoc sensu, non fuisse simpliciter et absolute necessariam.” Cf. John Davenant, Expositio Epistolae D. Pauli ad Colossenses, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Thomas Buck, 1639), 104–​6 [loc. Col. 1:20]. 197. The original copy of the signed Second Main Doctrine of the Canons of Dort can be found in Oud Synodaal Archief, vol. R, p. 28, Utrecht. Bibliographic data regarding this collection can be found in Sinnema, “The Drafting of the Canons of Dordt,” 291n1.

210 Notes

Chapter 5 1. Carl R. Trueman, “Amyraldianism,” Modern Reformation 21, no. 1 (2012): 60–​61, 60. 2. Blocher, “Jesus Christ the Man,” 541–​82. 3. Blocher, “Jesus Christ the Man,” 573. 4. Cf. the suggested rejected thesis written by the British delegation at Dort: Samuel Ward Papers, “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis,” Ward L2, fol. 49r. 5. Blocher, “Jesus Christ the Man,” 573. 6. Recently, R. Scott Clark managed to repeat nearly every mistake one finds in secondary literature on Davenant’s hypothetical universalism in “Canons of Dort (19): Unconditional Atonement,” Abounding Grace Radio (website), January 12, 2019, https://​www.agradio.org/​canons-​of-​dort-​19-​unconditional-​atonement.html. Note my response: Michael J. Lynch, “An Apology for John Davenant: Answering an Acrimonious Critic,” Calvinist International (website), January 28, 2019, https://​ calvinistinternational.com/​2019/​01/​28/​an-​apology-​for-​john-​davenant-​answering-​ an-​acrimonious-​critic/​. 7. Iudicium Synodi Nationalis, 36: “Fuit enim hoc Dei Patris liberrimum consilium, et gratiosissima voluntas atque intentio, ut mortis pretiosissimæ Filii sui vivifica et salvifica efficacia sese exereret in omnibus electis, ad eos solos fide justificante donandos, et per eam ad salutem infallibiliter perducendos.” 8. Note that Davenant thought Conrad Vorstius, a Remonstrant, conceded the Reformed position at this point. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 102–​3 (548–​50). Cf. Conrad Vorstius, Amica Duplicatio ad Iohannis Piscatoris . . . (Gouda: Andreas Burier, 1617), 230, 235. See below. 9. Ames and Grevinchovius, Dissertatio Theologica de Duabus Quaestionibus, 9: “nego iterum, applicationem ipsam ulli hominum, nisi fideli et qua fideli, certo Dei Consilio ac voluntate destinatam.” 10. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 58 (447): “Sed, ut mihi videtur, utcunque ambigue et obscure loquantur, tamen ab hoc errore alieni sunt.” 11. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 58 (448): “Fatendum tamen est, aliquos istorum hac in re aliquanto longius progressos.” 12. Arminius, Apologia, 154; Johannes Arnoldi Corvinus, Defensio Sententiae D. Iacobi Arminii, de Praedestinatione, Gratia Dei, Libero Hominis Arbitrio . . . (Leiden: John Patius, 1613), 232, 261. 13. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 58 (448). 14. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 40 (407): “arcte tenent Christum pro solis electis mortuum fuisse, et tamen (quod ego fateor me tardiorem esse quam ut intelligam) admittunt Christum pro omnibus mortuum sufficienter, atque hanc sufficientiam ad omnes homines sese diffundentem verbis aliquando valde exaggerant.” 15. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 40 (407). Cf. Alting, Scriptorum Theologicorum Heidelbergensium, Tomus Secundus, 176. Perhaps Alting’s note about the strict (“Christ died in the place of another”) and loose (“Christ died for the general good of another, procuring a sufficient price”) use of the term “for” (pro) would have helped

Notes  211 Davenant make sense of this seemingly contradictory language. Cf. also Twisse, Vindiciae Gratiae, 618. 16. Acta, Pars Secunda, 99: “quando Christus dicitur pro omnibus mortuus; hoc intelligi potest de meriti sufficientia, seu pretii magnitudine.” 17. Acta, Pars Secunda, 100: “Sicut Christus pro omnibus et solis electis adaequate est mortuus.” 18. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 43 (414). 19. Johann Piscator, Ad Conradi Vorstii . . . Amicam Collationem, Etc. . . . (Herborn: 1613), 146: “Ergo nec dici potest, mortuum esse pro omnibus sufficienter. Sequeretur enim, mortuum esse pro omnibus: cuius contrarium iam est demonstratum.” 20. Piscator, Ad Conradi Vorstii, 145–​46: “vocula PRO hic notet finem seu scopum Christi morientis, et per consequens efficaciam mortis.” 21. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 44 (415–​16). 22. Cf. the Dutch professors in their suffrage at Dort: Acta, Iudicia Theologorum Provincialium, 88: “Non est etiam dubitandum, quin haec fuerit Dei Patris, Filium suum tradentis, et Christi se ipsum offerentis, intentio; ut tale ac tantum λύτρον persolveret.” The Dutch theologians were Franciscus Gomarus, Johannes Polyander, Antonius Walaeus, Antonius Thysius, and Sibrandus Lubbertus. 23. William Ames, Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem . . . (Leiden: Elsevier, 1618), 117. 24. Acta, Pars Secunda, 90: “Consilium et Decretum Dei Patris fuisse, ut Christus passione et morte sua eiusmodi λύτρον persolveret, quod in se consideratum . . . ut omnibus et singulis hominibus Deo reconciliandis . . . abunde sufficeret.” 25. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 18 (358). Cf. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 146. 26. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 20 (363). 27. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 58 (448). Cf. Richard Thomson, Diatriba de Amissione et Intercisione Gratiae, et Iustificationis (Leiden: John Patius, 1616), 92, 99. 28. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 10 (340–​41). 29. Cf. Antonius Walaeus, Opera Omnia, Tomus Primus (Leiden: Franciscus Hackius, 1643), 39–​40. Note that not all Reformed theologians agreed with this distinction. See Heber Carlos de Campos Júnior, “Johannes Piscator (1546–​1625) and the Consequent Development of the Doctrine of the Imputation of Christ’s Active Obedience” (PhD diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2009). 30. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 11 (342). 31. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 12 (344). 32. Cf. Beza, Ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgardensis, Pars Altera, 212; the Contra-​ Remonstrants at the Hague Conference: Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 129; Piscator, Ad Conradi Vorstii, 99. Cf. Davenant, Animadversions, 218 (note the addendum at the beginning of the book). 33. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 12 (344). 34. Calvin, Calvin, Commentarius In Evangelium Secundum Joannem in Harmonia Ex Evangelistis Tribus Composita, 32–​33 [loc. Jn. 3:16]; Musculus, Commentarii In Evangelivm Ioannis, 71 [loc. Jn. 3:16]; Zanchi, De Christo Advocato in Miscellaneorum Libri Tres, 298; Ludovicus Crocius, Syntagma Sacrae Theologiae . . .

212 Notes (Bremen: Bertholdus Villerianus, 1636), lib. IV, cap. I [pp. 962–​63]; Ezekiel Culverwell, A Treatise of Faith . . . (London: I.L., 1623), 22ff.; Ezekiel Culverwell, A Briefe Answere to Certaine Objections against the Treatise of Faith (London: I.D., 1626), A6v–​A7r. 35. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 29 (384). 36. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 29–​30 (384). 37. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 30 (384). 38. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 14 (349). 39. Cf. Lynch, “Confessional Orthodoxy,” 135. 40. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 25 (375). 41. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 16–​17 (354–​56). Cf. 19–​20 (361–​62), 25–​26 (374–​77). 42. Pareus, “Sententia Doctoris Paraei de quinque Remonst. Articulis,” in Acta, Pars Prima, 217. 43. Cf. Lynch, “Quid Pro Quo Satisfaction?” 44. So, Gomarus, Opera Theologica Omnia, In Analysi Epistolae ad Galatas, Cap. I [p. 91]: “Quicunque debitas, pro omnibus suis peccatis poenas ipsimet Deo persolvunt: pro iis, Christus, passione et morte sua, easdem poenas perfecte non persolvit. Sed reprobi debitas, pro omnibus suis peccatis poenas ipsimet Deo persolvunt. Ergo Christus passione et morte sua, pro reprobis, easdem poenas perfecte non persolvit.” (Whoever pays themselves the penalties due all their sins, for them Christ did not, by his passion and death, perfectly pay for those same penalties. But the reprobate pay themselves the penalties due all their sins. Therefore Christ, by his passion and death, did not perfectly pay for those same penalties.) Cf. Acta, Pars Secunda, 89: “Alias enim a Deo puniri illi iuste non possent, cum Deus unum peccatum punire bis non possit, semel in Christo, semel in ipsis pereuntibus, a quibus ad ultimum usque quadrantem debitum suum exigit.” 45. Cf. Edward Polhill, The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees, and Holy Execution Of Them, 2nd ed. (London: Thomas Shelmerdine, 1695), 301–​13. 46. Cf. 5.3.2 of this study. 47. Cf. c­ hapter 6 of this study. 48. Alting, Exegesis Logica et Theologica Augustanae Confessionis, 134–​35. 49. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 21–​22 (367). 50. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 22 (368). 51. Acta, Pars Secunda, 88. Cf. Acta, Pars Secunda, 95; Acta, Iudicia Theologorum Provincialium, 90; Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 127. 52. Cf. a similar objection and response in Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 30–​31 (386–​87). 53. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 24–​25 (374). 54. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 25 (374). 55. Compare Ussher, Judgement, 29–​31 with Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 36–​37 (398–​400). 56. Acta, Pars Secunda, 86. 57. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 37 (401). 58. Cf. c­ hapters 3 and 4 of this study.

Notes  213 59. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 37 (401). Cf. Heinrich Bocer, Disputationes Iuridicae . . . , Classis Secunda (Tubingen: Georgius Gruppenbachius, 1597), Disp. IV, XLIII (p. 10): “Possibilis conditio est, quae natura vel lege accidere potest.” 60. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 37 (401). 61. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 40 (407). 62. Acta, Pars Secunda, 90. 63. Piscator, Ad Conradi Vorstii, 101. 64. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 37 (402). 65. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 37 (402). 66. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 38 (402). 67. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 38 (402). 68. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 38 (403). 69. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 38 (403). 70. Acta, Pars Secunda, 99. 71. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 40 (408). 72. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 43–​44 (415). 73. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 40 (408). 74. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 41 (408). 75. Gomarus, Opera Theologica Omnia, In Analysi Epistolae ad Galatas, Cap. I [p. 98]. 76. Gomarus, Opera Theologica Omnia, In Analysi Epistolae ad Galatas, Cap. I [p. 98]. 77. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 43 (414–​15). 78. Note Davenant’s use of Piscator in De Morte Christi, in DD, 43 (414–​15). Cf. the comment by William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1866), 397: “When the subject of the extent of the atonement came to be more fully and exactly discussed, orthodox Calvinists generally objected to adopt this scholastic position, on the ground that it seemed to imply an ascription to Christ of a purpose or intention of dying in some sense for all men. For this reason they usually declined to adopt it as it stood, or they proposed to alter it into this form,—​Christ’s death was sufficient for all, efficacious for the elect. By this change in the position, the question was made to turn, not on what Christ did, but on what His death was; and thus the appearance of ascribing to Him personally a purpose or intention of dying, in some sense, for all men, was removed.” 79. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 41 (409). 80. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 41 (409). 81. Ames and Grevinchovius, Dissertatio Theologica de Duabus Quaestionibus, 55. 82. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 42 (412). 83. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, (411) quotes Ames thus: “Non esse eandem rationem hominum quorumcunque quae est diabolorum, quoad sufficientiam mortis Christi. Hominibus enim quibuscunque, non autem diabolis satis idoneum solvebat λύτρον, si modo amplecti vellent.” The full quote from Ames includes: “quoad sufficientiam mortis Christi: non enim angelorum naturam assumsit Christus, sed himanam, atque hominibus quibuscunque, non autem diabolis satis.” 84. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 42 (412). 85. Ames and Grevinchovius, Dissertatio Theologica de Duabus Quaestionibus, 55.

214 Notes 86. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 43 (413). 87. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 43 (414). Note the errors in the English translation. Cf. Davenant, Expositio Epistolae D. Pauli ad Colossenses, 107 [loc. Col. 1:20]; Vitringa, Doctrina Christianae Religionis, 178–​81. 88. Walaeus, Opera Omnia, Tomus Primus, 195. 89. Antonius Walaeus, “De Angelis Bonis ac Malis,” in Synopsis Purioris Theologiae . . . (Leiden: Johannes & Daniel Elsevier, 1652), Disp. XII.33 [p. 126]. In translation: Synopsis Purioris Theologiae/​Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text and English Translation, ed. Dolf te Velde, trans. Riemer A. Faber (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 1:302–​3. 90. Cf. Scotus, Quaestiones in Lib. III. Sententiarum, dist. 19 q. 1 [p. 417]. Cf. Yang, “Scotus’ Voluntarist Approach,” 424ff. 91. Ames, Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem, 117. 92. Owen, Salus Electorum, lib. 4 ch. 1 [p. 174]. Emphasis added. 93. Davenant to Hildebrand in Hildebrand, Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, Iudicia, 28–​29. 94. Ames, Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem, 99. 95. Ames, Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem, 99. 96. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 43 (416). 97. Davenant is explicitly using Peter Lombard’s language “offered on the altar of the cross,” which provided the basis for the scholastic maxim that “Christ died for all sufficiently.” 98. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 44 (417). 99. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 88 (516): “Mors Christi, ex speciali Intentione Dei Patris illud sacrificium ab aeterno ordinatis et acceptantis, Christique illud idem in plenitudine temporis Deo Patri offerentis, destinata fuit certis quibusdam hominibus (quos Electos Scriptura appellat) iisdemque solis, ut efficaciter et infallibiliter applicanda ad aeternae vitae consecutionem.” Cf. Davenant to Hildebrand in Hildebrand, Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, Iudicia, 29. 100. Cf. Gomarus, Opera Theologica Omnia, In Analysi Epistolae ad Galatas, Cap. I [pp. 91–​92]. 101. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 89 (519). Pace Moore, “James Ussher’s Influence,” 173. who suggests that this is an area of disagreement with Ussher. It is not. 102. Ussher, Judgement, 30. 103. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 89 (518, 519); Augustine, In Evangelium Ioannis, Expositio, in Opera Omnia, vol. 9, tract. CVI [cited as CVII] [p. 349]. In translation: Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 55–​11, trans. John W. Rettig, in The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, vol. 90 (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1994), tract. 106 [p. 271]; Augustine, De Praedestinatione Sanctorum in Opera Omnia, vol. 7, cap. XVI [pp. 854–​ 55]; Augustine, The Predestination of the Saints in Answer to Pelagians IV: To the Monks of Hadrumetum and Provence, trans. Roland J. Teske, in 1/​26 of The Works of Saint Augustine, 175–​77; Domingo Báñez, Scholastica Commentaria in Primam Partem Angelici Doctoris S. Thomae Usque ad LXIIII. Quaestionem, Tomus Primus

Notes  215 (Douai: Peter Borreman, 1614), q. 23 a. 5 [p. 297]; The citation of Suárez in De Morte Christi (as “Suaresius in 3 tom. i. quaest. 19. disp. 31. pag. 634”) is wrong. Davenant probably has in mind Francisco Suárez, Commentariorum ac Disputationum in Tertiam Partem Divi Thomae, Tomus Primus (Alcalá de Henares: In Collegio Societatis Iesu, 1590), q. 19 disp. 41 art. 4 sec. 2 [p. 634]. 104. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 92 (525). 105. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 93 (527). 106. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 93 (528). 107. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 93–​94 (528): “denotamus singularem efficaciam ex voluntate speciali morientis profluentem.” 108. So, Suárez, Commentariorum ac Disputationum in Tertiam Partem Divi Thomae, Tomus Primus, q. 19 disp. 41 art. 4 sec. 1 [p. 628]. 109. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 97 (536–​37). 110. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 102 (547). 111. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 102–​3 (548–​50). Cf. Vorstius, Amica Duplicatio, 230, 235. 112. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 55 (440–​41). “Mors sive passio Christi, ut universalis causa salutis humanae, Deum Patrem ipso facto oblationis eatenus reddidit placatum et reconciliatum humano generi, ut vere nunc dicatur paratus quemvis hominem in gratiam recipere, simulac in Christum crediderit; neminem tamen, saltem ex adultis, praedicta Christi mors reponit in statum gratiae, actualis reconciliationis, sive salutis, antequam credat.” Cf. Davenant to Hildebrand in Hildebrand, Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, Iudicia, 28. 113. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 58 (447). 114. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 21, 58 (366, 448). 115. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 58 (447). Cf. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 9, 131, 162–​63, 186. 116. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 58 (447). 117. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 58 (447). Aquinas, De Veritate, in CT, q. 28 a. 3 ad 1. 118. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 60 (451). Note Aquinas’s use of this dictum in De Malo in CT, q. 3 a. 9 arg. 12. Davenant also cites Calvin, In Omnes Pauli Apostoli Epostolas, 88 [loc. Rom. 8:4]. 119. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 61 (455); Duns Scotus, Quaestiones in Lib. III. Sententiarum, dist. 19 q. 1 [p. 417]. Cf. Yang, “Scotus’ Voluntarist Approach,” 424ff. 120. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 61 (455). 121. Ambrose of Milan, De Fide ad Gratianum Augustum, in Tomus Secundus Divi Ambrosii Operum, Pugnas Continens . . . (Basel, 1538), lib. IV, cap. 1 [p. 96]; Prosper, Ad Capitula Objectionum Vincentianarum Responsiones in Opera, obj. 1 [p. 336]; Theodoret, Beati Theodoreti Cyrensis Episcopi in qua Quatuordecim Sancti Pauli Epistolas Commentarius . . . (Florence: Laurentius Torrentinus, 1552), Tom. II [p. 18, loc. Rom. 3:25]; Bede the Venerable, Venerabilis Bedae Presbyteri Theologi doctissimi Operum Tomus Tertius . . . (Paris: John Roignius, 1544), fol. 142r [loc. 2 Cor. 5:19]. 122. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 69 (474).

216 Notes 123. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 69 (474): “Dicunt enim reliquias quasdam vitae spiritualis omnibus hominibus inesse, scilicet in intellectu aliquam Dei cognitionem, in affectu ad bonum cognitum aliquod desiderium, quibus donis naturalibus si homo recte utatur, Deum illum majori gratia cumulaturum, et fide salutifera donaturum.” 124. Aquinas, De Veritate, in CT, q. 14 a. 11 ad. 1. 125. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 70 (475). 126. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 70 (475). Davenant cites Corvinus, Defensio Sententiae D. Iacobi Arminii, 109, 119, 121, 158, 403; Arminius, Examen Libelli Perkinsiani de Praedestinationis Ordine et Modo, 754. Cf. Davenant, Expositio Epistolae D. Pauli ad Colossenses, 138 [loc. Col. 1:27]. 127. Diego Álvarez, De Auxiliis Diuinae Gratiae et Humani Arbitrii Viribus, et Libertate, ac Legitima Eius cum Efficacia Eorundem Auxiliorum Concordia (Rome: Stephanus Paulinus, 20), Disp. 56 [p. 251]: “Nulla lex fuit umquam a Deo statuta, dandi auxilia praevenientis gratiae facientibus totum, quod in se est ex sola facultate naturae: neque Christus Dominus meruit, aut voluit, esse talem legem” [wrongly(?) cited as p. 651 in De Morte Christi]. 128. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 70 (476). 129. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 71 (478). 130. Cf. Davenant’s discussion of the word grace in De Morte Christi, in DD, 79–​80 (497–​98). 131. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 79–​80 (497); Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, in CT, Iª–​IIae q. 110 a. 1. 132. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 80 (497). 133. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 72 (481). 134. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 80 (498). 135. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 16, 80 (353, 498); Acta, Pars Secunda, 79; GR, Letters, 187. 136. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 80 (497). 137. Prosper, Prosper of Aquitaine, Ad Capitula Objectionum Gallorum Calumniantium responsiones, Resp. 4 (pp. 318–​19) and Sent. 4 (p. 330); Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 81 (499); Davenant, Sententia de Gallicana controversia, in DD, fol. Jj1r (566). 138. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 72–​73 (481–​83). 139. Corvinus, Defensio Sententiae D. Iacobi Arminii, 105. 140. Corvinus, Defensio Sententiae D. Iacobi Arminii, 108; Vossius, Historiae de Controversiis, quas Pelagius eiusque Reliquiae moverunt, vol. 6, Lib. VII, Pars I, Thesis IV [pp. 671–​72]. 141. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 75 (487). 142. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 76 (490). 143. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 80–​86 (498–​511). 144. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 83(mispaginated as 73)–​84, 85 (505, 508). On the Protestant notion of “sounder Papists,” see David S. Sytsma, “Aquinas in Service of Dordt: John Davenant on Predestination, Grace, and Free Choice,” in Beyond Dordt and De Auxiliis: The Dynamics of Protestant and Catholic Soteriology in the

Notes  217 Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. Jordan J. Ballor, Matthew T. Gaetano, and David S. Sytsma (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 175–​77. 145. Davenant, Sententia de Gallicana controversia, in DD, fols. Ii4r–​Jj1v (566). 146. On an analysis of its contents and a helpful investigation into its provenance, see Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition, 127–​44. Cf. Muller, “Dating John Davenant’s De Gallicana controversia sententia,” 10–​22. 147. Davenant, Sententia de Gallicana controversia, in DD, fol. Ii4r. 148. Richard Baxter to Thomas Wadsworth, June 24, 1656, Baxter Correspondence, Dr. Williams Library MS 59, ii.256.

Chapter 6 1. James B. Torrance, “Covenant or Contract? A Study of the Theological Background of Worship in Seventeenth-​Century Scotland,” Scottish Journal of Theology 23, no. 1 (1970): 51–​76; James B. Torrance, “The Incarnation and ‘Limited Atonement,’” Evangelical Quarterly 55 (1983): 83–​94, though Torrance does seem to grant that not all federal theology demanded “limited atonement” (85n3): “Not all the federal theologians taught this doctrine of God nor indeed did all subscribe to a limited atonement.” 2. David C. Lachman, The Marrow Controversy 1718–​ 1723: An Historical and Theological Analysis (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988), 11, 23. 3. Heinrich Heppe, Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus im sechzehnten Jahrhundert, 3 vols. (Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1857): 1:139ff; Perry Miller, The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, MA.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1983), 395–​97. Leonard J. Trinterud, “The Origins of Puritanism,” Church History 20, no. 1 (1951): 37–​57; Jens Møller, “The Beginnings of Puritan Covenant Theology,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 14, no. 1 (1963): 46–​ 67; Richard L. Greaves, “The Origins and Early Development of English Covenant Thought,” Historian 31, no. 1 (1968): 21–​35; J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980), 27ff. 4. Holmes Rolston III, John Calvin versus the Westminster Confession (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1972); Torrance, “Covenant or Contract?,” 51–​76. 5. Lyle D. Bierma, “Federal Theology in the Sixteenth Century: Two Traditions?,” Westminster Theological Journal 45, no. 2 (1983): 304–​21; Lyle D. Bierma, “The Role of Covenant Theology in Early Reformed Orthodoxy,” Sixteenth Century Journal 21, no. 3 (1990): 453–​62. 6. George Hill, Lectures in Divinity, ed. Alexander Hill (Philadelphia, PA: Herman Hooker, 1842), 593. 7. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 202. 8. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 20 (364); John Davenant, Praelectiones de Duobus in Theologia Controversis Capitibus: de Judice Controversiarum, Primo, de Justitia Habituali et actuali, Altero (Cambridge: Printing Shop of the Most-​Celebrated

218 Notes Academy, 1631), 407. In translation: A Treatise on Justification or the Disputatio de justitia habituali et actuali, of the right Rev. John Davenant . . . together with translations of the “Determinationes” of the same prelate, trans. Josiah Allport, 2 vols. (London: Hamilton, Adams, 1844–​46), 1:305. All subsequent citations to this work will be to the Latin with the English translation in parentheses. 9. Note how Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 45–​46 (417–​18) interchanges foedus evangelicum with promissio conditionalis. 10. Davenant, Praelectiones, 624 (2:166). 11. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 46 (421). Cf. Davenant, De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, in DD, 151–​53. 12. Davenant, Praelectiones, 407 (1:305). 13. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 20–​21 (364). 14. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 38 (404). 15. Note, e.g., Davenant’s use of Old Adam/​ New Adam language. Davenant, Praelectiones, 213 (1:10), 241 (1:53), 260 (1:82), 304–​ 5 (1:149); Davenant, Determinationes, 6 (II:215–​16), 52 (II:274); Davenant, Expositio Epistolae D. Pauli ad Colossenses, 197. 16. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 22–​23 (369), 28 (381). The idea of grace in the prelapsarian covenant of works is nearly universal among the Reformed orthodox. Cf. Muller, After Calvin, 183; Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage, 2012), 74ff. 17. Davenant, Praelectiones, 252 (1:69). 18. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 96 (535). 19. Davenant, Praelectiones, 243 (1:57–​58). 20. Davenant, Expositio Epistolae D. Pauli ad Colossenses, 278 (II:37). 21. Cf., e.g., Woolsey’s summary of the Reformed Orthodox on the pre-​fall covenant in Unity and Continuity, 45–​52. 22. Davenant makes this clear in De Morte Christi, in DD, 17 (357): “a genuine [serio] call to believe presupposes an object prepared in which to believe, and this very possibility of being saved by believing implies a saving object, that is, that the death or merit of Christ was ordained as a remedy applicable to him to whom such a benefit is promised under the condition of faith. For if he should be called to faith in Christ to whom Christ was not applicable from the ordination of God, faith would be required in a false [falsum] object, or rather in none at all as to the person called.” Emphasis Davenant. Cf. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 198–​202. 23. E.g., Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 14 (349): “the substance [materiam] of our preaching the gospel, which chiefly consists in this: that we assure every person that God is so reconciled to him by the death of Christ, that if he believes in Christ, God will not impute to him his sins, but will bestow upon him eternal life.” 24. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 38 (404). Emphasis added. 25. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 38 (404). 26. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 45 (418). 27. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 11 (342), 39 (404), 46 (420–​21), 96 (534); Davenant, Sententia de Gallicana controversia, in DD, fol. Ii4v. Cf. Davenant

Notes  219 to Hildebrand in Hildebrand, Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, Iudicia, 29–​30. 28. Davenant, Sententia de Gallicana controversia, in DD, fol. Ii4v. 29. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 45–​46 (419–​20). 30. Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, 154–​55; Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 46 (421). 31. Acta, Pars Secunda, 89. Cf. Davenant, De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, in DD, 152: “About such decrees all mortals are indiscriminately taught that, with those conditions fulfilled, it is lawful for them to expect salvation.” 32. Davenant, Expositio Epistolae D. Pauli ad Colossenses, 145 (I:324). 33. Davenant, De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, in DD, 153. Cf. Davenant, Expositio Epistolae D. Pauli ad Colossenses, 138 (I:310–​11), 145 (I:324). 34. Davenant, De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, in DD, 153. 35. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 22–​23 (369–​70); Davenant, Sententia de Gallicana controversia, in DD, fol. Ii4v. Cf. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 32–​33 (390–​92). See also the discussion of this type of intentionality in Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition, 139ff. 36. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 23 (370); Davenant, Sententia de Gallicana controversia, in DD, fol. Ii4v. Cf. Aquinas, De Veritate, in CT, q. 6 a. 2 co. 37. Aquinas, De Veritate, in CT, q. 6 a. 2 co. 38. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 23 (370). Cf. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 31 (388). On God’s general love for mankind, see Davenant, De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, in DD, 172. 39. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 50–​54 (429–​39). 40. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 50 (429). 41. Cf. PRRD, 3:532–​37. 42. Báñez, Scholastica Commentaria, q. 23 a. 3 [p. 276]. 43. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, in CT, Iª q. 25 a. 3 co. 44. Báñez, Scholastica Commentaria, q. 23 a. 3 [p. 276]. 45. Báñez, Scholastica Commentaria, q. 23 a. 3 [p. 276]; Cf. Francisco Suárez, Metaphysicarum Disputationum . . . , 2 vols. (Venice: Iohannes Baptista Colosinus, 1605), II:XXX.xvii.32 [p. 155]. 46. Scotus, Quaestiones in Lib. I. Sententiarum, dist. 44 q. 1 [p. 1369]. 47. Scotus, Quaestiones in Lib. I. Sententiarum, dist. 44 q. 1 [p. 1369]. 48. Note, however, Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 52 (433): “Nobody doubts that after this life the state of wicked people is immoveably fixed and clearly unchangeable.” 49. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 51 (431). 50. See the discussion in Mark A. Garcia, Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology (Colorado Springs, CO: Paternoster, 2008), 273–​87. 51. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 39 (406), 40 (407). 52. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 50 (429). 53. Davenant, Expositio Epistolae D. Pauli ad Colossenses, 137–​38 (309–​11). 54. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 203–​4.

220 Notes 55. Davenant, Praelectiones, 399–​ 406 (1:294–​ 303); Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 203–​4. Cf. Francis Turretin’s discussion of the question in Institutio Theologiae Elencticae . . . , 3 vols. (Geneva: Samuel de Tournes, 1688–​90), II.17.3 [2:768–​771]. 56. This point is granted by Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 204n162. 57. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 78. 58. William Perkins, The Workes of That Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ in the Universitie of Cambridgem Mr. William Perkins . . . , 3 vols. (London: John Legatt, 1616–​1618), I:7. 59. Perkins, Workes, I:576. 60. Perkins, Workes, I:70. 61. Perkins, Workes, I:650. 62. Perkins, Workes, I.650. 63. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 472–​89. 64. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 203, 207. 65. Johann Jacob Grynaeus, Theses Theologicae de Foedere Gratiae inter Deum et Homines (Basel: Konrad von Waldkirch, 1595), XXVII [fol. B1v]: “Nunc de subject ut dicamus restat, hoc est, quinam ad hoc foedus pertineant, seu cum quibus id Deus ineat.” 66. Grynaeus, Theses Theologicae de Foedere Gratiae, XXIIX [fol. B1v]: “distinctione aliqua fraduum sanctionis opus erit.” 67. Grynaeus, Theses Theologicae de Foedere Gratiae, XXIX [fols. B1v–​B2r]: “Nam si sanction, foederis gratuiti accipiatur: de sufficientia lutrou Christi pro omnibus: de vocatione et invitatione, saltem aliqua, omnium, ad amplectendum foedus hoc gratiae item de mandato universali fidei et obedientiae. Hac sane ratione foedus etiam gratuitum ad omnes in universum homines extendi potest.” 68. Grynaeus, Theses Theologicae de Foedere Gratiae, XXXI [fol. B2r]. 69. Raphael Eglin, Tractatus Theologicus de Coena Domini, et Foedere Gratiae, Quinis Disputationibus interstinctus (Marburg: Paulus Egenolphus, 1614), Disp. V, 40–​44 [fol. V2r]. Cf. Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, trans. G. T. Thompson, ed. Ernst Bizer (repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2007), 371–​72. 70. William Perkins, A Godly and Learned Exposition or Commentarie upon the three first Chapters of Revelation, 3rd ed. (London: Adam Islip, 1607), 208. 71. Note Davenant’s citation of Rupert in De Morte Christi, in DD, 105 (555). 72. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 38–​39 (404–​5). Note the mistranslation on 405: “Without this latter covenant, which is more properly understood to be established between God and men” should read: “established between God and the mediator, than between God and men.” Latin: “magis proprie inter Deum et Mediatorem, quam inter Deum et Homines.” 73. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 92 (525). 74. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 105 (555). 75. Davenant, Animadversions, 10. 76. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 205; Moore, “The Extent of the Atonement,” 142n82. On the Pactum Salutis more generally, see Richard A. Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis: Locating the Origins of a Concept,” Mid-​America Journal of Theology

Notes  221 18 (2007): 11–​65. Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 237–​58. 77. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 205: “It seems that from the perspective of later Reformed orthodoxy, what Davenant is engaged in here is the merging into one of the pactum salutis and the foedus gratiae.” 78. Cf. David Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra: Shewing briefly The method of healing the diseases of the Conscience, concerning Regeneration . . . (Edinburgh: Evan Tyler, 1664), 25: “This covenant of redemption, is in effect one with the eternall decree of redemption, wherein the salvation of the elect, and the way how it shall be brought about is fixed, in the purpose of God”; Carol A. Williams, “The Decree of Redemption Is in Effect a Covenant: David Dickson and the Covenant of Redemption” (PhD diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2005), 193–​94, 219–​20. 79. On the debate surrounding the lapsarian position of Davenant, see Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 188n74. 80. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 205, 206. Cf. Godfrey, “Tensions,” 182n22, 187: “Davenant created a novel construction of the order of decrees.” 81. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 20 (362), 39 (405), 105 (555). 82. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 88 (515–​16); Davenant, Animadversions, 17, 26–​ 27, 204–​5, 435, 494–​97. Cf. Sytsma, “Aquinas in Service of Dordt,” 180–​85; Jonathan Roberts, “The Nature of God and Predestination in John Davenant’s Dissertatio De Praedestinatione et Reprobatione” (master’s thesis, University of Missouri, St. Louis, 2017). 83. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 20 (362): “Si secundum ordinem et naturam ipsarum rerum, atque considerationis nostrae.” Emphasis added. Cf. the language of Davenant, De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, in DD, 108 “ex parte ipsarum rerum quae Deus intelligit et decrevit signa quaedam prioritatis et posterioritatis distingui possunt, secundum nostrum modum intelligendi.” Emphasis added. 84. Davenant’s most important reflections on the lapsarian debates in the early modern period are found in De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, in DD, 108–​9 (mispaginated as 111), 114–​18. Cf. Roberts, “The Nature of God,” 13: “There are two ways of understanding lapsarianism: the first posits a real priority and posteriority as ordering God’s acts of willing. The second way holds that ordering the decrees is an act of creatures attempting to understand the one act of a simple God. Davenant is concerned with critiquing this first kind of lapsarianism.” 85. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 88 (515): “Conceive therefore that first in order was the decree of God concerning the appointment and sending of a Mediator (which seems to me better suited to our mode of understanding [quod mihi videtur ad nostrum intelligendi modum aptius]) and that afterwards was the decree concerning the election of certain persons to the infrustrable attainment of eternal life through the appointed Mediator.” 86. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 88 (515). 87. Davenant, Animadversions, 27–​28; Davenant, Determinationes, 119–​23 (II:354–​59). 88. See especially Davenant, De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, in DD, 116–​18; Davenant, Animadversions, 8.

222 Notes

Chapter 7 1. Owen, Of the Death of Christ, fols. A2r–​A2v. 2. Owen, Of the Death of Christ, fol. A2r. 3. Owen, Of the Death of Christ, fol. A2r. 4. Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 237. 5. Gibson and Gibson, “Sacred Theology,” 50. 6. Gibson, “The Glorious, Indivisible,” 370. 7. Gibson, “The Glorious, Indivisible,” 349. 8. Macleod, “Definite Atonement,” 432. 9. Macleod, “Definite Atonement,” 431. 10. Davenant, Animadversions, 390–​91. 11. Davenant, Animadversions, 390–​93. 12. Johannes Strangius, De Voluntate & Actionibus Dei circa Peccatum . . . (Amsterdam, Ludovicus & Daniel Elzevir, 1657), 8. See also Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity . . . (London, A. M., 1662), 197–​98. Cf. Johannes Maccovius, Distinction et Regulae Theologicae ac Philosophicae (Franeker: John Archer, 1653), cap. IV dist. 30 [p. 49]: “Distinctio voluntatis in signi et beneplaciti, non est distinctio, sed tantum vocis ambiguae explicatio.” 13. Davenant, Animadversions, 374–​75. 14. Davenant, Animadversions, 391. 15. Davenant, Animadversions, 390–​91. 16. Diego Ruiz de Montoya, Commentaria, ac Disputationes in primam partem sancti Thomae. De Voluntate Dei, et Propriis Actibus Eius (Lyon: Prost, 1630). 17. Samuel Rutherford, Exercitationes Apologeticae pro Divina Gratia . . . (Franeker: John Dhüiring, 1651), 154. 18. Ruiz de Montoya, Commentaria . . . De Voluntate Dei, VI.2 [pp. 38–​40] XIX.12 [p. 214]. 19. Davenant, Animadversions, 221, 391. 20. Ruiz de Montoya, Commentaria . . . De Voluntate Dei, VI.2 [pp. 38–​40] XIX.12 [p. 214]. 21. Davenant, Animadversions, 403. 22. Davenant, Animadversions, 212. 23. Cf. PRRD, 3:457. 24. Cf. Rutherford, Exercitationes, 217. 25. Davenant, De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, in DD, 126. 26. Davenant, Animadversions, 220–​21; Davenant, De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, in DD, 126–​27; Davenant, Expositio Epistolae D. Pauli ad Colossenses, 145–​46 (I:324). 27. Augustine, De Correptione et gratia ad Valentinum, et cum illo monachis, liber unus in Opera Omnia, vol. 7, 14 [p. 919]. Cf. Gregory the Great, Opera, vol. 1, Expositionis in Primum Regum, Qui Samuelis Dicitur, V.4 [col. 414]; Thomas Aquinas, Super I Epistolam B. Pauli ad Timotheum lectura in CT, cap. 2 l. 1. 28. Davenant, Animadversions, 220–​21; Davenant, De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, in DD, 126–​27.

Notes  223 29. Davenant, Animadversions, 221. 30. Davenant, Animadversions, 222. 31. Davenant, Expositio Epistolae D. Pauli ad Colossenses, 145–​46 (I:323–​25). 32. Davenant, Expositio Epistolae D. Pauli ad Colossenses, 138 (I:310). 33. Davenant, Animadversions, 220. 34. On the distinction between a mixed conditional and a mere conditional decree, see Ruiz de Montoya, Commentaria ac Disputationes de Scientia, de Ideis, de Veritate, ac de Vita Dei . . . (Paris: Sebastian Cramoisy, 1629), VI.2 [pp. 38–​40] LXXI.7 [p. 744]. It is called a mixed conditional because, as Ruiz says, this antecedent will is “necessarily and essentially conjoined with [God’s will of] simple complacency, and partly with an efficacious will, as far as it pertains to God’s part” (Commentaria . . . De Voluntate Dei, XX.1 [p. 215]). Cf. Davenant, Animadversions, 225–​27. 35. Gabriel Vásquez, Commentariorum, ac Disputationum in Primam Partem S. Thomae, Tomus Primus (Ingolstadt: Andreas Angermarius, 1609), Disp. LXXXIII.4 [p. 511]. 36. Contra Kang, “The Extent of the Atonement,” 93–​94. Kang claims that for Davenant, “predestination is a revealed decree of God in the Gospel,” even though Davenant argues the exact opposite. This is based on a misreading of John Davenant to Samuel Ward, May 5, 1629, Tanner MS 71, fols. 5r–​5v, Bodleian Library, Oxford University, Oxford. 37. Davenant, De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, in DD, 194: “nos nihil aliud denotare per hanc conditionatam voluntatem, quam aeternam illam et inviolabilem Dei ordinationem de nexu indissolubili fidei et salutis: propter quem nexum de qualibet persona electa vel non-​electa verificatur haec promissio, Si tu credideris salvus eris.” 38. Davenant, Animadversions, 227. 39. Davenant, Animadversions, 391. Note that Kang, “The Extent of the Atonement,” 131n625 wrongly claims that I miscited this quote in my essay on Richard Hooker. Perhaps he is unaware that there are three different printings of Davenant’s Animadversions, two by Roger Daniels (Cambridge, 1641) and one by John Partridge (London, 1641). I am using one of the two printings by Daniels, while Kang uses the Partridge printing. 40. Davenant, Animadversions, 391. 41. Cf. 6.2.2 above. 42. Davenant, “De Gallicana Controversia sententia,” in DD, Ii4v (565). 43. Davenant, Animadversions, 376. 44. Davenant, Animadversions, 394–​95. 45. Davenant, Animadversions, 392. Cf. Montoya, Commentaria . . . De Voluntate Dei, XVIII.4 [p. 185]: “Sola voluntas absoluta simpliciter amplectitur obiectum: et ideo sola simpliciter et absolute meretur nomen voluntatis beneplaciti” (“Only the absolute will simply embraces its object, and therefore it only, simply and absolutely, deserves the name: ‘will of good pleasure’ ”); Gale, The Court of the Gentiles, Part IV, II.5 [p. 357]. 46. Davenant, Animadversions, 392. 47. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, ch. 6. 48. Davenant, Animadversions, 392.

224 Notes 49. Davenant, “De Gallicana Controversia sententia,” in DD, Ii4v (565). 50. Davenant, Animadversions, 8. Cf. Augustine, de bono perseverantiae in Opera Omnia, vol. 7, cap. 14 [p. 871]. Cf. Davenant, De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, in DD, 112–​13. 51. Cf. Davenant, De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, in DD, 112–​13. 52. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 36 (398); Davenant to Hildebrand in Hildebrand, Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, Judicia, 27. 53. Davenant, Expositio Epistolae D. Pauli ad Colossenses, 89 (I:209). Cf. 22 (I:55); 62 (I:145), 209 (I:448). 54. Davenant, Expositio Epistolae D. Pauli ad Colossenses, 103 (I:238). 55. Cf. Letham, “The Triune God,” 442–​44. 56. Gibson, “The Glorious, Indivisible,” 369. 57. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 23 (371). 58. Davenant to Hildebrand in Hildebrand, Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, Iudicia, 28: “Nam penes quem ipsum donum est, penes eundem doni sui modificandi et limitandi potestatem esse oportere, jus ipsum et recta ratio dictabit.” 59. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 47 (423). 60. Acta, Pars Secunda, 80. 61. Letham, “The Triune God,” 444. 62. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation, 120. 63. Obj. 13 in Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 32 (389–​90). 64. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 32 (390). 65. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 33 (391). 66. Davenant, De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, in DD, 129. Cf. Báñez, Scholastica Commentaria, q. 23 a. 7 resp. ad 5 [p. 310]. 67. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 33 (391). 68. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 33 (391). 69. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 32 (390). 70. Turretin, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae, II.14 q.14.13 [p. 500]. 71. Cf. Hans Boersma, A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification in Its Seventeenth-​Century Context of Controversy (Vancouver: Regent College, 2004), 211–​15. 72. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 35 (396). 73. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 33 (391–​92). 74. Davenant, De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, in DD, 175. Cf. Montoya, Commentaria . . . De Voluntate Dei, XX [pp. 214–​17]. 75. Davenant, Animadversions, 392.

Bibliography John Davenant Primary Sources Animadversions written by the Right Reverend Father in God, John, Lord Bishop of Sarisbury, upon a treatise intituled, Gods love to mankinde. Cambridge: Roger Daniel, 1641. Baptismal Regeneration and the Final Perseverance of the Saints. A Letter . . . to Dr Samuel Ward. Translated by J. Allport. London: William Macintosh, 1864. The Determinationes; or Resolutions of Certain Theological Questions . . .. In A Treatise on Justification or the Disputatio de justitia habituali et actuali, of the right Rev. John Davenant . . . together with translations of the “Determinationes” of the same prelate. Translated by Josiah Allport, 2 vols. II:201–​536. London: Hamilton, Adams, 1844–​46. Determinationes Quaestionum quarundam Theologicarum. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Thomas Buck, 1639. Dissertatio De Morte Christi. . . . Cambridge: Roger Daniels, 1683. Dissertationes Duae: Prima de Morte Christi, Quatenus ad omnes extendatur, Quatenus ad solos Electos restringatur. Altera de Praedestinatione & Reprobatione . . . Quibus subnectitur ejusdem D. Davenantii Sententia de Gallicana controversia. Cambridge: Roger Daniels, 1650. “A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, as to Its Extent and Special Benefits: Containing a Short History of Pelagianism, and Shewing the Agreement of the Doctrines of the Church of England on General Redemption, Election, and Predestination, with the Primitive Fathers of the Christian Church, and above All, with the Holy Scriptures.” In An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians . . . to which is added a translation of Dissertatio de morte Christi, by the same prelate. Translated, with a life of the author and notes illustrative of the writers and authorities referred to in the work, by Josiah Allport, 2:309–​558. 2 vols. London: Hamilton, Adams, 1831–​32. “Doctour Davenant touching the Second Article, discussed at the conference at the Hague on the Extent of Redemption” (ca. 1618). In John Hales, Golden Remains, of the Ever Memorable Mr. John Hales . . . With Additions from the Authours own Copy, Viz. Sermons & Miscellanies. Also Letters and Expresses Concerning the Synod of Dort, (not before Printed,) From an Authentick Hand, 186–​90. London: Thomas Newcomb, 1673. Epistola Davenantii [ad Samuelem Wardum] (n.d.). In Thomas Bedford, Vindiciae Gratiae Sacramentalis . . . Quibus praefigitur Epistola Reverendissimi Patris, & Praesulis dignissimi Joannis Davenantii . . . , 1–​31. London: Guil. Dugard, 1650. An Exhortation to Brotherly Communion betwixt the Protestant Churches. London: R. B., 1641. Expositio Epistolae D. Pauli ad Colossenses. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Thomas Buck, 1639. An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians . . . to which is added a translation of Dissertatio de morte Christi, by the same prelate. Translated, with a life of the author and notes illustrative of the writers and authorities referred to in the work, by Josiah Allport. 2 vols. London: Hamilton, Adams, 1831–​32.

226 Bibliography Judicium Reveredniss, Johannis Davenantii Episcopi Sarisburiensis in Anglia . . . Ad primum articulum de morte & merito Christi . . . secundus articulus de divina reprobatione (n.d.). In Herman Hildebrand, Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, De Mortis Christi Sufficientia et Efficacia, Reprobationis Causa Meritoria, Privata Denique Communione . . . et Postmodum Judiciis Theologorum clarissimorum, in Anglia Reverendiss. Johannis Davenantii Sarisburiensis et Josephi Halli Exoniensis Episcoporum, in Germania Brandenburgensium Hassiacorum et Bremensium comprobata. Judicia, 27–​33. Bremen: Bertholdus Villierianus, 1642. Letter to Samuel Ward, October 10, 1625. MS Tanner 72, fol. 55. Bodleian Library, Oxford University. Letter to Samuel Ward, November 4, 1628. MS Tanner 72, fol. 298. Bodleian Library, Oxford University. Letter to Samuel Ward, March 6, 1628/​29. MS Tanner 72, fol. 312. Bodleian Library, Oxford University. Praelectiones de Duobus in Theologia Controversis Capitibus: de Judice Controversiarum, Primo, de Justitia Habituali et actuali, Altero. Cambridge: Printing Shop of the Most-​ Celebrated Academy, 1631. “On the Controversy among the French Divines of the Reformed Church, concerning the Gracious and Saving Will of God towards Sinful Men.” In An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians. 2:559–​69. A Treatise on Justification or the Disputatio de justitia habituali et actuali, of the right Rev. John Davenant . . . together with translations of the “Determinationes” of the same prelate. Translated by Josiah Allport. 2 vols. London: Hamilton, Adams, 1844–​46. With George Carleton, Walter Balcanquhall, Samuel Ward, and Thomas Goad. Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, March 11, 1618: “Reasons of Enlarging Grace beyond Election.” In John Hales, Golden Remains, of the Ever Memorable Mr. John Hales . . . With Additions from the Authours own Copy, Viz. Sermons & Miscellanies. Also Letters and Expresses Concerning the Synod of Dort, (not before Printed,) From an Authentick Hand, 184–​86. London: Thomas Newcomb, 1673.

Other Primary Sources Abbot, Robert. Letter to Richard Baxter, January 7, 1651/​2. MS 59, iv.180. Baxter Correspondence. Dr. Williams Library, London. Acta Synodi Nationalis, In nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi, Autoritate Illustr, et Praepotentum DD. Ordinum Generalium Foederati Belgii Provinciarum, Dordrechti Habitae Anno MDCXVIII et MDCXIX. Accedunt Plenissima, de Quinque Articulis, Theologorum Judicia. Leiden: Isaac Elzevirus, 1620. Alting, Heinrich. Exegesis Logica et Theologica Augustanae Confessionis . . . Accessit Syllabus Controversiarum. . . . Amsterdam: Johannes Janssonius, 1652. Alting, Heinrich. Scriptorum Theologicorum Heidelbergensium, Tomus Secundus: Continens Problemata Theologica, tam Theoretica, quam Practica. Amsterdam: Johannes Janssonius, 1646. Álvarez, Diego. De Auxiliis Diuinae Gratiae et Humani Arbitrii Viribus, et Libertate, ac Legitima Eius cum Efficacia Eorundem Auxiliorum Concordia. Rome: Stephanus Paulinus, 1610. Ambrose of Milan. Commentarii in Psalmum CXVIII in Quartus Tomus Divi Ambrosii Episcopi Mediolanensis Operum. . . . Basel, 1538.

Bibliography  227 Ambrose of Milan. Commentary of Saint Ambrose on the Gospel according to Saint Luke. Translated by Ide M. Ni Riain. Dublin: Halcyon Press, 2001. Ambrose of Milan. De Fide ad Gratianum Augustum. In Tomus Secundus Divi Ambrosii Operum, Pugnas Continens. . . . Basel, 1538. Ambrose of Milan. Quintus Tomus Divi Ambrosii Mediolanensis episcopi operum, complectens scholiorum seu Commentariorum in Evangelium Lucae libros X. . . .. Basel, 1567. Ames, William. Anti-​Synodalia Scripta, vel Animadversiones. . . . Amsterdam: Guilielmus Blaeus, 1633. Ames, William. Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem. . . . Leiden: Elsevier, 1618. Ames, William. Rescriptio scholastica et brevis ad Nicolai Grevinchovii responsum illud prolixum. . . .. Amsterdam: Henry Laurentius, 1615. Ames, William, and Nicholas Grevinchovius. Dissertatio Theologica de Duabus Quaestionibus Hoc Tempore controversis, Quarum, Prima Est de Reconciliatione per mortem Christi impetrata omnibus ac singulis hominibus: Altera, de Electione ex fide praevisa. . . .. Rotterdam: Mathias Sebastianus, 1615. Andreae, Jacob. Acta Colloquij Montis Belligartensis. Tubigen: Georgius Gruppenbachius, 1587. Aquinas, Thomas. Corpus Thomisticum: Sancti Thomae de Aquino Opera Omnia. Edited by Enrique Alarcon. http://​www.corpusthomisticum.org/​iopera.html. Aquinas, Thomas. De Malo. In Corpus Thomisticum: S. Thomae De Aquino Opera Omnia. Pamplona: Univesitatis Studiorum Navarrensis, 2000. Aquinas, Thomas. De Veritate. Among Quaestiones disputatae. In Corpus Thomisticum: S. Thomae De Aquino Opera Omnia. Pamplona: Univesitatis Studiorum Navarrensis, 2000. Aquinas, Thomas. Expositio super Apocalypsim. In Corpus Thomisticum: S. Thomae De Aquino Opera Omnia. Pamplona: Univesitatis Studiorum Navarrensis, 2000. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa contra Gentiles. In Corpus Thomisticum: S. Thomae De Aquino Opera Omnia. Pamplona: Univesitatis Studiorum Navarrensis, 2000. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. In Corpus Thomisticum: S. Thomae De Aquino Opera Omnia. Pamplona: Univesitatis Studiorum Navarrensis, 2000. Aquinas, Thomas. Super I Epistolam B. Pauli ad Timotheum lectura. In Corpus Thomisticum: S. Thomae De Aquino Opera Omnia. Pamplona: Univesitatis Studiorum Navarrensis, 2000. Arminius, Jacob. Apologia . . . Arminii adversus Articulos. . . . In Opera Theologica. Leiden: Godefridus Basson, 1629. Arminius, Jacob. Examen Libelli Perkinsiani de Praedestinationis Ordine et Modo. In Opera Theologica. Leiden: Godefridus Basson, 1629. Arrowsmith, John. Tactica Sacra, Sive De milite Spirituali Pugnante, Vincente, & Triumphante Dissertatio, Tribus Libris Comprehensa. Cambridge: John Field, 1657. Augustine. Against Julian. Translated by Matthew A. Schumacher. In The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Vol. 35. New York: Fathers of the Church, 1957. Augustine. D. Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis Episcopi, Epistolae, Tomus Secundus. Lyon: Sebastian Honoratus, 1561. Augustine. The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Charity. Translated by Bruce Harbet. In On Christian Belief. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2005. Augustine. The Gift of Perseverance. In Selected Writings on Grace and Pelagianism. Translated by Roland Teske. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2011.

228 Bibliography Augustine. Letters: Volume 4 (165–​203). Translated by Wilfrid Parsons. In The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Vol. 30. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1955. Augustine. Opera Omnia. Edited by Desiderius Erasmus. 10 vols. Basel: Froben, 1528–​29. Augustine. The Predestination of the Saints. In Answer to Pelagians IV: To the Monks of Hadrumetum and Provence. Translated by Roland J. Teske. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1999. Augustine. The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Little Ones. In Selected Writings on Grace and Pelagianism. Translated by Roland Teske. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2011. Augustine. Tractates on the Gospel of John, 55–​11. Translated by John W. Rettig. In The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Vol. 90. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1994. Augustine. A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints. In vol. 5 of Nicene and Post-​ Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, edited by Philip Schaff. Series One, 14 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1886–​1900. Báñez, Domingo. Scholastica Commentaria in Primam Partem Angelici Doctoris S. Thomae Usque ad LXIIII. Quaestionem, Tomus Primus. Douai: Peter Borreman, 1614. Barlee, William. Praedestination . . . in a Correptorie Correction. . . . London: W.H., 1656. Baxter, Richard. Catholick Theologie: Plain, Pure, Peaceable: For Pacification Of the Dogmatical Word-​Warriours . . . In Three Books. London: Robert White, 1675. Baxter, Richard. Certain Disputations Of Right to Sacraments, and the true nature of Visible Christianity, Defending them against several sorts of Opponents, especially against the second assault of that Pious, Reverend and Dear Brother Mr. Thomas Blake. London: William Du-​Gard, 1657. Baxter, Richard. A Christian Directory: Or a Summ of Practical Theologie, and Cases of Conscience. . . . London: Robert White, 1673. Baxter, Richard. Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church-​membership and Baptism. . . . London: T[homas] U[nderhill] and F[rancis] T[yton], 1656. Baxter, Richard. Relinquiae Baxterianae: Or, Mr. Richard Baxter’s Narrative. . . . Edited by Matthew Sylvester. London: T. Parkhurst, J. Robinson, J. Lawrence, J. Dunton, 1696. Baxter, Richard. Rich: Baxter’s Confession of his Faith, Especially concerning the Interest of Repentance and sincere Obedience to Christ, in our Justification & Salvation. London: R.W., 1655. Baxter, Richard. The Saints Everlasting Rest: Or A Treatise Of the Blessed State of the Saints in their enjoyment of God in Glory. . . . 2nd ed. London: Thomas Underhill and Francis Tyton, 1651. Baxter, Richard. Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ. London: John Salusbury, 1694. Bede the Venerable. Venerabilis Bedae Presbyteri Theologi doctissimi Operum Tomus Tertius. . . . Paris: John Roignius, 1544. Benedictus, Aretius. Commentarii in Epistolas D. Pauli ad Timoth. ad Titum, et ad Philem. facili et perspicua methodo conscripti. Morges: John le Preux, 1583. Bertius, Petrus, ed. Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis. Leiden: John Patius, 1615. Beza, Theodore. Ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgardensis Tubingae Edita, Theodori Bezae Responsionis, Pars Altera. 3rd ed. Geneva: Ioannes le Preux, 1589. Blondel, David. Actes Authentiques des Eglises Reformees. . . . Amsterdam: Jean Blaeu, 1655.

Bibliography  229 Bocer, Heinrich. Disputationes Iuridicae . . . Classis Secunda. Tubingen: Georgius Gruppenbachius, 1597. Bogerman, Johannes. Ad Scripti Magnifici et Clarissimi viri D. Hugonis Grotii . . . Partes priores duas, In quibus tractat causam Vorstii et Remonstrantum, sive Pastorum ullorum qui sequuntur sententiam I. Arminii, Annotationes In gratiam Lectoris veritatis studiosi conscriptae. Franeker: Rombertus Doyema, 1614. A Booke of certaine Canons, concernyng some parte of the discipline of the Churche of England. In the yeare of our Lord. 1571. London: John Daye, 1571. Brand, Henrik, ed. Collatio Scripto Habita Hagae. . . . Zierikzee: John Hellenius, 1615. “Brevis et Simplex Declaratio Status Controversiae circa quinque Articulos doctrinae . . . .” In Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, edited by Petrus Bertius. Leiden: John Patius, 1615. Brinsley, John. Gospel-​Marrow, the Great God giving himself for the sons of Men: Or, The Sacred Mystery of Redemption by Jesus Christ, with two of the Ends thereof . . . Wherein (among many other useful and profitible Truths) the unhappy Controversie of the Times about the Extent of Christs Death is modestly and plainly discussed and determined for the satisfaction of those who are willing to receive it. London: S. Griffin, 1659. Bullinger, Heinrich. In Apocalypsim Iesu Christi. . . . Basel: Samuel Regius, 1570. Burgess, Anthony. The True Doctrine of Justification Asserted & Vindicated. . . . London: Thomas Underhill, 1654. Burgess, Cornelius. Baptismall Regeneration of Elect Infants. . . . Oxford: I.L., 1629. Burton, William. An Exposition of the Lords Prayer. . . . London: The Widdow Orwin, 1594. Calvin, John. Calumniae nebulonis cuiusdam, quibus odio et invidia gravare conatus est doctrinam Joh. Calvini de occulta Dei providentia. Johannis Calvini ad easdem responsio. [Geneva], 1558. Calvin, John. Commentarii in Epistolas canonicas. . . . 2nd ed. Geneva: John Crispin, 1554. Calvin, John. Commentarius In Evangelium Secundum Joannem in Harmonia Ex Evangelistis Tribus Composita . . . Eiusdem In Johannem Evangelistam Commentarius. Geneva: Eustathius Vignon, 1595. Calvin, John. De Aeterna Dei Praedestinatione in Opuscula omnia in unum volumen collecta. Geneva: Gerard, 1552. Calvin, John. Harmonia ex Evangelistis Tribus Composita, Matthaeo, Marco, et Luca, Commentariis Iohannis Calvini Exposita. Geneva: Eustathius Vignon, 1595. Calvin, John. In Omnes Pauli Apostoli Epostolas. . . . Geneva: Thomas Curteus, 1565. Calvin, John. Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia. Edited by Wilhelm Baum, Eduard Cunitz, and Eduard Reuss. 59 vols. Brunswick: Schwetscke, 1863–​1900. Calvin, John. Sermons Dem. Iean Caluin fur le v. liure de Moyse nommé Deuteronome. Geneva: Thomas Courteau, 1567. Calvin, John. The Sermons of M. Iohn Calvin Vpon the Fifth Booke of Moses Called Deuteronomie. Translated by Arthur Golding. London: Henry Middleton, 1583. Cambridge University Transactions during the Puritan Controversies. Edited by James Heywood and Thomas Wright. 2 vols. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854. Chamier, Daniel. Panstratiae Catholicae, Tomus Tertius, De Homine Corrupto et Instaurato. Geneva: Roverianis, 1626. Clement of Alexandria. Paedagogus. In Clementis Alexandrini Opera Graece Latine. Paris: Carolus Morellus, 1629. Corvinus, Johannes Arnoldi. Defensio Sententiae D. Iacobi Arminii, de Praedestinatione, Gratia Dei, Libero Hominis Arbitrio. . . . Leiden: John Patius, 1613. Crocius, Ludovicus. Syntagma Sacrae Theologiae. . . . Bremen: Bertholdus Villerianus, 1636.

230 Bibliography Culverwell, Ezekiel. A Briefe Answere to Certaine Objections against the Treatise of Faith. London: I.D., 1626. Culverwell, Ezekiel. A Treatise of Faith. . . . London: I.L., 1623. Daillé, Jean. Apologiae pro Synodis Alensonensi et Carentonensi, Tomus Secundus. Amsterdam: Johannes Ravensteynius, 1655. Denzinger, Heinrich. Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals. Edited by Peter Hünermann, Robert Fastiggi, and Anne Englund Nash. 43rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2012. Dickson, David. Therapeutica Sacra: Shewing briefly The method of healing the diseases of the Conscience, concerning Regeneration. . . . Edinburgh: Evan Tyler, 1664. Eglin, Raphael. Tractatus Theologicus de Coena Domini, et Foedere Gratiae, Quinis Disputationibus interstinctus. Marburg: Paulus Egenolphus, 1614. England, John. A View of Arminianism Compared with Moderate Calvinism. Wherein is shewed the Dangerous Tendency of the Arminian doctrine . . . Whereunto is Prefix’d a Table or Scheme of God’s decrees. . . . London: T. Parkhurst, J. Clark, and J. Miller, 1707. Eusebius of Caesarea. De Demononstratione Evangelica. In Opera, in Duos divisa Tomos. . . . Basel: Henric Petrina, 1570. Eusebius of Caesarea. The Proof of the Gospel Being the Demonstratio Evangelica. Translated by W. J. Ferrar. 2 vols. New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920. Faustus of Riez. “Eiusdem Fausti Epistola ad Lucidum Presbyterum.” In vol. 5.3 of Magna Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum et Antiquorum Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, edited by Marguerin de la Bigne. Cologne: Antonius Hieratus, 1618. Faustus of Riez. Fausti Episcopi de Gratia Dei, et humanae mentis libero arbitrio. Basel, [1528]. Ferrari, Joseph Anthony. Theologia Scholastico-​Critico-​Historico-​Dogmatica. . . . 2 vols. Venice: Anthony Zatta, 1767. Flodoardus. Historiae Remensis Ecclesiae, Libri IIII. Douai: John Bogard, 1617. Forbes, John. Instructiones Historico-​ Theologicae. . . . Amsterdam: Ludovicus Elzevirius, 1645. Gale, Theophilus. The Court of the Gentiles, Part IV. Of Reformed Philosophie. London: J. Macock, 1677. Gataker, Thomas. Reverendi Viri Dom. Joannis Davenantii . . . Epistola, in qa de Infantium qorumvis rite Baptizatorum statu disseritur . . . Una cum Stricturis in eandem nonnullis. London: J.G., 1654. Gill, John. Being the Judgment of the Ancient Christian Church, or the Sense of the Christian Writers of the first Four Centuries after Christ and before Austin. . . . Part IV. The Cause of God and Truth. 4 parts. London: Aaron Ward, 1735–​38. Gomarus, Franciscus. Opera Theologica Omnia. . . . Amsterdam: Johannes Janssonius, 1644. Goodwin, John. ’Απολύτρωσις ’Απολυτρώσεως or Redemption Redeemed. . . . London: John Macock, 1651. Gottschalk of Orbais. Gottschalk and a Medieval Predestination Controversy: Texts Translated from the Latin. Edited and translated by Victor Genke and Francis X. Gumerlock. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2010. Gottschalk of Orbais. Œuvres théologiques et grammaticales de Godescalc d’Orbais. Edited by D. C. Lambot. Louvain: “Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense” Bureaux, 1945. Gregory the Great. Sancti Gregorii Magni Papae Primi Operum. 6 vols. Antwerp: Peter and John Bellerus, 1615.

Bibliography  231 Grotius, Hugo. Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae Pietas (1613): Critical Edition with English Translation and Commentary. Edited by Edwin Rabbie. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Grynaeus, Johann Jacob. Thesaurus Verae et Orthodoxae Fidei: Ex Praestantissimis Theologis, adversus varias haereses, a quodam verbi Dei Ministro collectus, & in quatuor classes distributus. Basel: Conr. Waldkirch, 1587. Grynaeus, Johann Jacob. Theses Theologicae de Foedere Gratiae inter Deum et Homines. Basel: Konrad von Waldkirch, 1595. Gwalther Rudolf. In Ioannis Apostoli et Evangelistae Epistolam Canonicam, Homiliae XXXVII. Zurich: Christopher Froschoverus, 1578. Haimo of Halberstadt. Haimonis Episcopi Halberstattensis in Divi Pauli Epistolas Omneis Interpretatio. . . . Cologne, 1531. Hales, John. Golden Remains, of the Ever Memorable Mr. John Hales . . . With Additions from the Authours own Copy, Viz. Sermons & Miscellanies. Also Letters and Expresses Concerning the Synod of Dort, (not before Printed,) From an Authentick Hand. London: Thomas Newcomb, 1673. Hall, Joseph. The Works of Joseph Hall, D.D. Rev. ed. 12 vols. Oxford: D. A. Talboys, 1839. Hemmingsen Niels. Tractatus de Gratia Universali seu Salutari Omnibus Hominibus. . . . Copenhagen: John Alburgensis, 1591. Hildebrand, Herman. Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, De Mortis Christi Sufficientia et Efficacia, Reprobationis Causa Meritoria, Privata Denique Communione . . . Et postmodum Judiciis Theologorum clarissimorum, in Anglia Reverendiss. Johannis Davenantii Sarisburiensis & Josephi Halli Exoniensis episcoporum, in Germania Brandenburgensium Hassiacorum et Bremensium comprobata ac Auctoritatibus Ex veneranda partum, scholasticorum & conciliorum antiquitate & recentiorum Doctorum. . . . Bremen: Bertholdus Villierianus, 1642. [Holdsworth, Richard?]. “Directions for a Student in the Universitie.” In Harros Francis Fletcher, The Intellectual Development of John Milton, 2:623–​55. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1961. Homes, Nathanael. The Works of Dr. Nathanael Homes. London, 1652. Huber, Samuel. Compendium Thesium Samuelis Huberi, De Universali Redemptione Generis Humani. Facta per Christum Iesum, Contra Calvinistas. Tubingen: Georgius Gruppenbachius, 1590. Huber, Samuel. Theses, Christum Jesum esse mortuum pro peccatis omnium hominum: Contra Novum Horrendum, atque Intolerabilem Quorundam Calvinistarum errorem. . . . Tubingen: Georgius Gruppenbachius, 1590. Humfrey, John. Free Thoughts Upon these Heads. . . . London: T. Parkhurst and Jonathan Robinson, 1710. Iudicium Synodi Nationalis, Reformatarum Ecclesiarum Belgicarum, habitae Dordrechti, Anno 1618. & 1619 . . . de Quinque Doctrinae Capitibus in Ecclesiis Belgicis Controversis. Dordrecht: Iohannes Berewout and Franciscus Bosselaer, 1619. Jansen, Cornelius. Augustinus seu Doctrina Sancti Augustini . . . Tribus Tomis Comprehensa. Paris: Michael Solius and Matthaeus Guillemot, 1641. Jenison, Robert. Two Treatises, the First concerning Gods Certaine performance of his conditional Promises, as touching the Elect, or, A Treatise Of Gods most free and powerfull Grace . . . The second, Concerning the extent of Christs death and love, now added to the former. With an Additionall thereunto. London: E.G., 1642. Jewel, John. An Apologie, or aunswer in defence of the Church of England, concerninge the state of Religion used in the same. London, 1562.

232 Bibliography John of Damascus. Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Translated by S. D. F. Salmond. In A Select Library of Nicene and Post-​Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, edited by Phillip Schaff and Henry Wace. Second series. 14 vols. Reprint. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955. Kimedoncius, Jacob. De Redemptione Generis Humani Libri tres: Quibus copiose traditur controversia, de Redemtionis et Gratiae per Christum Universalitate, et Morte Ipsius pro Omnibus. Heidelberg: Abraham Smesmannus, 1592. Kimedoncius, Jacob. Of The Redemption of Mankind Three Bookes: Wherein the controversie of the universalitie of Redemption and grace by Christ, and his death for all men, is largely handled. London: Felix Kingston, 1598. Leigh, Edward. A Systeme or Body of Divinity. . . . London: A.M., 1662. Liber Quorundam Canonum Disciplinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae. Anno MDLXXI. London: John Day, 1571. Lombard, Peter. Magistri Sententiarum, Libri IIII. Lyon: Peter Landry, 1593. Lombard, Peter. The Sentences: On the Incarnation of the Word. Vol. 3 of The Sentences. 4 vols. Translated by Giulio Silano. Edited by Joseph Goering and Giulio Silano. Medieval Sources in Translation 45. Ontario: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2008. Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesammtausgabe. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1883–​2009. Lyford, William. The Plain Mans Senses Exercised. London: Printed for Richard Royton, 1655. Maccovius, Johannes. Distinction et Regulae Theologicae ac Philosophicae. Franeker: John Archer, 1653. Magna Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum et Antiquorum Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum. Edited by Marguerin de la Bigne. 14 vols. Cologne: Antonius Hieratus, 1618. Maresius, Samuel. Systema Theologicum. Groningen: Aemilius Spinneker, 1673. Melanchthon, Phillip. Locorum Theologicorum postrema editio absoluta Anno 1545. In Operum Omnium Reverendi Viri Philippi Melanthonis, Pars Prima. Wittenberg: John Craton, 1580. Milton, Anthony. ed. The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–​1619). Suffolk, UK: Church of England Record Society/​Boydell Press, 2005. Montoya, Diego Ruiz de. Commentaria ac Disputationes de Scientia, de Ideis, de Veritate, ac de Vita Dei. . . . Paris: Sebastian Cramoisy, 1629. Montoya, Diego Ruiz de. Commentaria, ac Disputationes in primam partem sancti Thomae. De Voluntate Dei, et Propriis Actibus Eius. Lyon: Prost, 1630. Musculus, Wolfgang. Commentarii in Evangelium Ioannis. . . . Basel: Johannes Hervagius, 1564. Musculus, Wolfgang. Common Places of Christian Religion. Translated by John Man. London: Henry Bynneman, 1578. Musculus, Wolfgang. Loci Communes sacrae Theologiae, iam recens recogniti et emendati. Basel: John Heruagius, 1564. “On the Five Articles disputed in the Low Countries.” In The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort, edited by Anthony Milton, 64–​70. Suffolk, UK: Church of England Record Society/​Boydell Press, 2005. Origen. Origenis Adamantii Operum Complectentium . . . Pars Secunda. Paris, 1604. Overall, John. In the dedication of The works of the very learned and reverend father in God Iohn Iewell, not long since Bishop of Sarisburie. London: John Norton, 1609.

Bibliography  233 Overall, John. “The judgement of the Church of England concerning divine predestination.” In The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort, edited by Anthony Milton, 74–​ 84. Suffolk, UK: Church of England Record Society/​Boydell Press, 2005. Overall, John. “Sententia Ecclesiae Anglicanae de Praedestinatione & Capitibus annexis, ab eodem (uti fertur) authore, jussu Regis Serenissimi conscripta.” In John Davenant, Dissertationes Duae: Prima de Morte Christi, Quatenus ad omnes extendatur, Quatenus ad solos Electos restringatur. Altera de Praedestinatione & Reprobatione . . . Quibus subnectitur ejusdem D. Davenantii Sententia de Gallicana controversia, Ii6r–​Kk2r. Cambridge: Roger Daniels, 1650. Owen, John. Of the Death of Christ, The Price he paid, and the Purchase he made. Or, The Satisfaction, and Merit of the Death of Christ cleared, the Universality of Redemption thereby oppugned . . . Vindicated from the Exceptions, and Objections of Mr. Baxter. London: Peter Cole, 1650. Owen, John. Salus Electorum, Sanguis Jesu: Or the Death of Death in the Death of Christ. . . . London: W.W., 1648. Pareus, David. Brevis Repetitio Ex Verbo Dei Doctrinae Catholicae Ecclesiarum Palatinatus. Heidelberg: Joshua Harnisius, 1593. Pareus, David. Explicationum Catecheticarum D. Zachariae Ursini. . . . Neustadt an der Weinstrasse: Wilhelm Harnisius, 1600. Pareus, David. “Fragmentum Orationis: De Quaestione Ad Quos Fructus Mortis Et Resurrectionis Christi pertineant: & quomodo Christus pro omnibus sit mortuus.” In Explicationum Catecheticarum D. Zachariae Ursini Silesii Absolutum Opus. Neustadt an der Weinstraße: Wilhelm Harnisch, 1598. Pareus, David. Irenicum, sive de Unione et Synodo Evangelicorum Concilianda Liber Votivus Paci Ecclesiae, & desideriis pacificorum dicatus. Heidelberg: Johannes Lancellotus, 1615. Pareus, David. Rettung Der zur Newstatt an der Hardt, durch Matthaeum Harnisch, Anno LXXXVII, gedruckten Teutschen Bibel, wider D. Iacobi Andreae newlich dawider auß gesprengte vnuerschämbte Lesterungen. Neustadt an der Weinstraße: Mattheus Harnisch, 1589. Pareus, David. “Sententia Doctoris Paraei de quinque Remonst. Articulis.” In Acta Synodi Nationalis, Pars Secunda. Leiden: Isaac Elzevirus, 1620. Perkins, William. De Praedestinationis Modo et Ordine: Et de Amplitudine Gratiae Divinae Christiana et perspicua disceptatio. Basel: Conrad Waldkirchius, 1599. Perkins, William. A Godly and Learned Exposition or Commentarie upon the three first Chapters of Revelation. 3rd ed. London: Adam Islip, 1607. Perkins, William. A Golden Chaine, Or the Description of Theologie. . . . London: Edward Alde, 1592. Perkins, William. A Reformed Catholike: or, A Declaration Shewing How Neere We May Come to the Present Church of Rome in sundrie points of Religion: and wherein we must for ever depart from them: with an Advertisment to all favourers of the Romane religion, shewing that the said religion is against the Catholike principles and grounds of the catechisme. Cambridge: John Legat, 1598. Perkins, William. The Workes of That Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ in the Universitie of Cambridgem Mr. William Perkins. . . . 3 vols. London: John Legatt, 1616–​18. Piscator, Johann. Ad Conradi Vorstii . . . Amicam Collationem, Etc. . . . Herborn, 1613.

234 Bibliography Piscator, Johann. Ad Conradi Vorstii, S. Theol. D. Parasceuen Responsio apologetica Johan. Piscatoris. Herborn, 1613. Piscator, Johann. Disputatio Theologica de Praedestinatione: ac Nominatim de Tribus Quaestionibus Hodie Controversis . . . Opposita Disputationi Andreae Schaafmanni. . . . Herborn: Christopher Corvinus, 1595. Polanus, Amandus. Syntagma Theologiae Christianae. Hanau: Wechelianis, 1615. Polhill, Edward. The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees, and Holy Execution Of Them. 2nd ed. London: Thomas Shelmerdine, 1695. Pope Innocent III. Opera. Cologne: John Novesianus, 1552. Preston, John. The Breast-​Plate of Faith and Love. London: W.I., 1630. Prosper of Aquitaine. Ad Capitula Objectionum Vincentianarum Responsiones. In Divi Prosperi Aquitanici, Episcopi Rhegiensis, Viri eruditissimi, Opera Accurata Exemplarium Vetustorum Collatione a mendis pene innumeris repurgata. . . . Cologne: Arnoldus Kempensus, 1609. Prosper of Aquitaine. Epistola ad Augustinum de Reliquiis Pelagianae Haereseos. In Divi Prosperi Aquitanici, Episcopi Rhegiensis, Viri eruditissimi, Opera Accurata Exemplarium Vetustorum Collatione a mendis pene innumeris repurgata. . . . Cologne: Arnoldus Kempensus, 1609. Prosper of Aquitaine. Prosper of Aquitaine, Ad Capitula Objectionum Gallorum Calumniantium responsiones. In Divi Prosperi Aquitanici, Episcopi Rhegiensis, Viri eruditissimi, Opera Accurata Exemplarium Vetustorum Collatione a mendis pene innumeris repurgata. . . . Cologne: Arnoldus Kempensus, 1609. Prosper of Aquitaine. Prosper of Aquitaine: Defense of St. Augustine. Translated by P. De Letter. In Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation 32. New York: Newman Press, 1963. Pucci, Francesco. De Christi Servatoris Efficacitate in Omnibus et Singulis Hominibus, Quatenus Homines sunt. . . . Gouda: John Zassen Hoenius. Remigius of Rheims. Explanationes Epistolarum Beati Pauli Apostoli. In vol. 5.3 of Magna Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum et Antiquorum Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, edited by Marguerin de la Bigne. Cologne: Antonius Hieratus, 1618. Rutherford, Samuel. Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himselfe. . . . London: J.D., 1647. Rutherford, Samuel. The Covenant of Life Opened: Or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace. . . . Edinburgh: A.A., 1655. Rutherford, Samuel. Exercitationes Apologeticae pro Divina Gratia. . . . Franeker: John Dhüiring, 1651. Samuel Ward Papers. “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae De Canonibus Formandis aliisque in Synodo Dordracena proposita.” In Samuel Ward MS L2, Sydney Sussex College, Cambridge. Schriftelicke Conferentie, gehovden in s’Gravenhaghe inden Iare 1611, tusschen sommighe Kercken-​dienaren: Aengaende de Godlicke Praedestinatie metten aencleven van dien. Ter Ordonnantie vande Ed. Mog. Heeren Staten van Hollandt ende West-​Vrieslandt Ghedruckt. s’Graven-​Hage: Hillebrandt Jacobsz, 1612. Scotus, Duns. Quaestiones in Lib. I. Sententiarum. Lyon: Laurentius Durand, 1639. Scotus, Duns. Quaestiones in Lib. III. Sententiarum. Lyon: Laurentius Durand, 1639. Sibelius, Caspar. Annotationes ad Synodum Dordracenam. GAD150 MS 1113 98r. Regionaal Archief, Dordrecht. Sohn, Georg. De Officio Filii Dei Incarnati. . . . Heidelberg: Jacob Mylius, 1586.

Bibliography  235 Sohn, Georg. Theses de Justificatione. In Operum Georgii Sohnii, Tomus Primus. Herborn: Christopher Corvinus, 1591. Strangius, Johannes. De Voluntate & Actionibus Dei circa Peccatum. . . . Amsterdam, Ludovicus & Daniel Elzevir, 1657. Strype, John. The Life and Acts of Whitgift, D.D. . . . 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1822. Suárez, Francisco. Commentariorum ac Disputationum in Tertiam Partem Divi Thomae, Tomus Primus. Alcalá de Henares: In Collegio Societatis Iesu, 1590. Suárez, Francisco. Metaphysicarum Disputationum. . . . 2 vols. Venice: Iohannes Baptista Colosinus, 1605. Testard, Paul. Eiphnikon Seu Synopsis Doctrinae de Natura et Gratia. Blois: Martin Huissens, 1633. Theodoret. Beati Theodoreti Cyrensis Episcopi in qua Quatuordecim Sancti Pauli Epistolas Commentarius. . . . Florence: Laurentius Torrentinus, 1552. Thomson, Richard. Diatriba de Amissione et Intercisione Gratiae, et Iustificationis. Leiden: John Patius, 1616. Tossanus, Daniel, Sr. Disputatio Theologica: De illo loco D. Pauli 1 Cor.15.v.22. Sicut in Adam Omnes Moriuntur: Ita et in Christo Omnes Vivificabuntur: Et de hac quaestione: An Christus pro Omnibus Sit Mortuus? Heidelberg: Abraham Smesmannius, 1589. Troughton, William. Scripture Redemption, Restrayned and Limitted; or, An Antidote against Universal Redemption, in ten Reasons or Arguments, deduced from plain Scripture. . . . London: J.M., 1652. Turretin, Francis. Institutio Theologiae Elencticae. . . . 3 vols. Geneva: Samuel de Tournes, 1688–​90. Twisse, William. The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort and Arles, reduced to the practice. With a consideration thereof and representation with what sobriety it proceeds. Amsterdam: Successors to G. Thorp, 1631? Twisse, William. The Riches of God’s Love unto the Vessels of Mercy, Consistent with His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath. Or an Answer unto a Book Entituled Gods Love unto Mankind Manifested by Disproving His Absolute Decree for their Damnation. In Two Bookes. . . . Oxford: Printed by L.L. and H.H. Printers to the University, 1653. Twisse, William. Vindiciae Gratiae, Potestatis ac Providentiae Dei, Hoc est, Ad Examen Libelli Perkinsiani de Praedestinationis modo et ordine, institutum a Jacobo Arminio. . . . Amsterdam: Joannes Janssonius, 1648. Ursinus, Zacharias. Corpus Doctrinae Christianae. . . . Edited by David Pareus. Hanover: Esthera Rosa, 1634. Ursinus, Zacharias. Explicationum Catecheticarum. Neustadt an der Weinstraße: Wilhelm Harnisch, 1598. Ursinus, Zacharias. The Summe of Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Parry. London: James Young, 1654. Ussher, James. The Judgement Of the Late Arch-​Bishop of Armagh, And Primate of Ireland, 1. Of the Extent of Christs death, and satisfaction, &c. . . . Edited by Nicholas Bernard. London: John Crook, 1657. Ussher, James. The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, D.D., Lord Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland. 17 vols. Dublin: Hodges, Smith, 1864. Vásquez, Gabriel. Commentariorum, ac Disputationum in Primam Partem S. Thomae. Tomus Primus. Ingolstadt: Andreas Angermarius, 1609. Vermigli, Peter Martyr. Loci Communes. London: John Kyngston, 1576.

236 Bibliography Vermigli, Peter Martyr. Most learned and fruitful Commentaries of D. Peter Martir Vermilius Florentine, Professor of Divinity in the School of Tigure, upon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romans. London: John Daye, 1558. Vermigli, Peter Martyr. Predestination and Justification: Two Theological Loci. Translated and edited by Frank A. James III. In The Peter Martyr Library. Vol. 8. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2003. Voetius, Gisbertus. Exercitia et Bibliotheca Studiosi Theologiae. Utrecht: Wilhelmus Strick, 1644. Voetius, Gisbertus. Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum. 5 vols. Utrecht: Johannes à Waesberge, 1648–​69. Vorstius, Conrad. Amica Duplicatio ad Iohannis Piscatoris. . . . Gouda: Andreas Burier, 1617. Vossius, Gerhard Johann. Historiae de Controversiis, quas Pelagius eiusque Reliquiae moverunt. In Gerardi Joan. Vossii Opera in Sex Tomos Divisa. Vol. 6. Amsterdam: P. & J. Blaevus, 1701. Walaeus, Antonius. “De Angelis Bonis ac Malis.” In Synopsis Purioris Theologiae. . . . Leiden: Johannes & Daniel Elsevier, 1652. Walaeus, Antonius. “De Angelis Bonis ac Malis.” In Synopsis Purioris Theologiae/​Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text and English Translation, edited by Dolf te Velde, translated by Riemer A. Faber. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Walaeus, Antonius. Opera Omnia, Tomus Primus. Leiden: Franciscus Hackius, 1643. Willet, Andrew. Synopsis Papismi, That Is, A Generall View of Papistrie. . . . London: Felix Kyngston, 1600. Windeck, Johann Paul. Controversiae de Mortis Christi Efficacia, inter Catholicos et Calvinistas Hoc Tempore Disputatae. . . . Cologne: Arnoldus Quentelius, 1603. Witsius, Herman. De Efficacia et Utilitate Baptismi in Electis foederatorum parentum infantibus. In Miscellaneorum Sacrorum Tomus alter, Continens XXIII Exercitationes, maxima ex parte Historico-​ & Critico-​ Theologicas . . . Quibus accesserunt Animadversiones Irenicae ad Controversias quasdam Anglicanas; ut & Orationes Quinque. 611–​68. Amsterdam: Franciscus Halmas and William Vande Water, 1700. Witsius, Herman. “On the Efficacy and Utility of Baptism in the Case of Elect Infants Whose Parents Are under the Covenant.” Translated by William Marshall and J. Mark Beach. Mid-​America Journal of Theology 17 (2006): 121–​90. Zanchi, Girolamo. De Christo Advocato. In Miscellaneorum Libri Tres. Neustadt an der Weinstrasse: Wilhelm Harnisius, 1603. Zanchi, Girolamo. De Natura Dei, Seu de Divinis Attributis, Libri V. Heidelberg: 1577. Zanchi, Girolamo. De Praedestinatione Sanctorum. In Miscellaneorum Libri Tres. Neustadt an der Weinstrasse: Wilhelm Harnisius, 1603.

Secondary Sources Adam, Gottfried. Der Streit um die Prädestination im ausgehenden 16. Jahrhundert: Eine Untersuchung zu den Entwürfen von Samuel Huber und Aegidius Hunnius. Neukirchen-​ Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1970. Aegerter, Emmanuel. “Gottschalk et le problème de la prédestination au IX e siècle.” Revue de l’histoire des religions 116 (1937): 187–​223.

Bibliography  237 Allen, David L. The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016. Allison, C. Fitzsimons. The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter. Vancouver: Regent College, 1966. Allison, Gregg R. Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011. Archbald, Paul. “A Comparative Study of John Calvin and Theodore Beza on the Doctrine of the Extent of the Atonement.” PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1998. Armstrong, Brian G. Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-​Century France. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. Backus, Irena. “The Fathers and Calvinist Orthodoxy: Patristic Scholarship.” In The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, edited by Irena Backus, 2:839–​65. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Backus, Irena. Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation (1378–​1615). Leiden: Brill, 2003. Backus, Irena, and Aza Goudriaan. “‘Semipelagianism’: The Origins of the Term and Its Passage into the History of Heresy.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 65, no. 1 (2014): 25–​46. Bailey, Hunter M. “Via Media Alia: Reconsidering the Controversial Doctrine of Universal Redemption in the Theology of James Fraser of Brea (1639–​1699).” PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2008. Baker, J. Wayne. Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980. Barrett, Matthew. The Grace of Godliness: An Introduction to Doctrine and Piety in the Canons of Dort. Kitchener, Ontario: Joshua Press, 2013. Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003–​6. Beeke, Joel R., et al. Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism. Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust, 2008. Beeke Joel R., and Mark Jones. A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012. Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1937. Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. New ed. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1996. Bierma, Lyle D. “Federal Theology in the Sixteenth Century: Two Traditions?” Westminster Theological Journal 45, no. 2 (1983): 304–​21. Bierma, Lyle D. An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History, and Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005. Bierma, Lyle D. “The Role of Covenant Theology in Early Reformed Orthodoxy.” Sixteenth Century Journal 21, no. 3 (1990): 453–​62. Blacketer, Raymond A. “Blaming Beza: The Development of Definite Atonement in Reformed Theology.” In From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson, 121–​41. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013.

238 Bibliography Blacketer, Raymond A. “Definite Atonement in Historical Perspective.” In The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Theological and Practical Perspectives, edited by Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James III, 304–​23. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Blocher, Henry A. G. “Jesus Christ the Man: Toward a Systematic Theology of Definite Atonement.” In From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson, 541–​582. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013. Boersma, Hans. “Calvin and the Extent of the Atonement.” Evangelical Quarterly 64, no. 4 (1992): 333–​55. Boersma, Hans. A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification in Its Seventeenth-​Century Context of Controversy. Vancouver: Regent College, 2004. Bonner, Gerald. St. Augustine of Hippo: Life and Controversies. Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2000. Bray, Gerald. God Has Spoken: A History of Christian Theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014. Brooks, Sara Erickson. “The Early Church in the Sacred and Secular Politics of England and the United Provinces, c. 1580–​1616.” PhD diss., Princeton University, 2009. Brown, John. Opinions on Faith, Divine Influence, Human Ability, the Design and Effect of the Death of Christ, Assurance, and the Sonship of Christ. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: William Oliphant and Son, 1841. Browne, H. “Note A.” In Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, and His First Epistle of Saint Augustine, II.1236–​48. 2 vols. Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1848. Burden, Mark. “Academic Learning in the Dissenters’ Private Academies, 1660–​1720.” PhD diss., University of London, 2012. Carpenter, Marc D. “A History of Hypo-​ Calvinism.” Trinity Review, March–​April 1997, 1–​11. Casiday, A. M. C. Tradition and Theology in St John Cassian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Clark, R. Scott. “Canons of Dort (19): Unconditional Atonement.” Abounding Grace Radio (website). January 12, 2019. https://​www.agradio.org/​canons-​of-​dort-​19-​ unconditional-​atonement.html. Clausen, Sara Jean. “Calvinism in the Anglican Hierarchy, 1603–​1643: Four Episcopal Examples.” PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, 1989. Collier, Jay T. Debating Perseverance: The Augustinian Heritage in Post-​Reformation England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Como, David. “Puritans, Predestination and the Construction of Orthodoxy in Early Seventeenth-​Century England.” In Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c. 1560–​1660, edited by Peter Lake and Michael Questier, 64–​87. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000. Compton, Jared M. “John Davenant’s Dissertation on the Death of Christ: A Review Essay (With an Invitation).” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 21 (2016): 167–​81. Copinger, Walter Arthur. A Treatise on Predestination, Election, and Grace: Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical. London: James Nisbet, 1889. Crisp, Oliver D. Deviant Calvinism: Broadening Reformed Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014. Cunningham, William. Historical Theology: A Review of the Principal Doctrinal Discussions in the Christian Church since the Apostolic Age. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863.

Bibliography  239 Cunningham, William. The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1866. Dabney, R. L. Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology. 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO: Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis, 1878. Daniel, Curt D. “Hyper-​Calvinism and John Gill.” 2 vols. PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 1983. de Campos Júnior, Heber Carlos. “Johannes Piscator (1546–​1625) and the Consequent Development of the Doctrine of the Imputation of Christ’s Active Obedience.” PhD diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2009. De Jong, Peter Y., ed. Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dort, 1618–​1619. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Fellowship, 1968. Demarest, Bruce. “Amyraldianism.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2001. den Boer, William. God’s Twofold Love: The Theology of Jacob Arminius (1559–​1609). Translated by Albert Gootjes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Denlinger, Aaron Clay. “Scottish Hypothetical Universalism: Robert Baron (c. 1596–​1639) on God’s Love and Christ’s Death for All.” In Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland: Essays on Scottish Theology 1560–​1775, edited by Aaron Clay Denlinger, 83–​ 102. New York: Bloomsbury, 2015. Dewar, Michael Willoughby. “The British Delegation at the Synod of Dort: Assembling and Assembled; Returning and Returned.” Churchman 106, no. 2 (1992): 130–​46. Dewar, Michael Willoughby. “British Delegation at the Synod of Dort, 1618–​1619.” Evangelical Quarterly 46, no. 2 (1974): 103–​16. Ella, George. “Bishop John Davenant and the Death of Christ: A Vindication.” Focus 2, no. 2 (1997): 12–​16. Elrington, Charles Richard. “The Life of James Ussher, D.D., Archbishop of Armagh.” In vol. 1 of James Ussher, The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, D.D., Lord Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland. 17 vols. Dublin: Hodges, Smith, 1864. Ferguson, Sinclair. “Blessèd Assurance, Jesus Is Mine? Definite Atonement and the Cure of Souls.” In From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson, 607–​31. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013. Fesko, J. V. “Lapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dort.” In Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​ Century British Puritanism, edited by Mark Jones and Michael A. Haykin, 99–​123. Oakville, CT: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2011. Fesko, J. V. The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014. Fornerod, Nicolas. “‘The Canons of the Synod Had Shot Off the Advocate Head’: A Reappraisal of the Genevan Delegation at the Synod of Dordt.” In Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–​1619), edited by Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg, 181–​215. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Fuller, Morris Joseph. The Life, Letters & Writings of John Davenant, D.D., 1572–​1641, Lord Bishop of Salisbury. London: Methuen, 1897. Garcia, Mark A. Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology. Colorado Springs, CO: Paternoster, 2008. Gatiss, Lee. “A Deceptive Clarity? Particular Redemption in the Westminster Standards.” Reformed Theological Review 69, no. 3 (2010): 180–​96.

240 Bibliography Gatiss, Lee. “The Synod of Dort and Definite Atonement.” In From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson, 143–​ 63. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013. Gibson, David, and Jonathan Gibson, eds. From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013. Gibson, Jonathan. “The Glorious, Indivisible, Trinitarian Work of God in Christ: Definite Atonement in Paul’s Theology of Salvation.” In From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, edited by Jonathan Gibson and David Gibson, 368–​71. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013. Gibson, David, and Jonathan Gibson. “Sacred Theology and the Reading of the Divine Word: Mapping the Doctrine of Definite Atonement.” In From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson, 33–​ 53. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013. Gillis, Matthew Bryan. “Heresy in the Flesh: Gottschalk of Orbais and the Predestination Controversy in the Archdiocese of Rheims.” In Hincmar of Rheims: Life and Work, edited by Rachel Stone and Charles West, 247–67. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015. Godfrey, William Robert. “Reformed Thought on the Extent of the Atonement to 1618.” Westminster Theological Journal 37, no. 2 (1975): 133–​71. Godfrey, William Robert. “Tensions within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618–​1619.” PhD diss., Stanford University, 1974. Gootjes, Albert. “John Cameron (ca. 1579–​1625) and the French Universalist Tradition.” In The Theology of the French Reformed Churches: From Henry IV to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, edited by Martin I. Klauber, 169–​96. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage, 2014. Goudriaan, Aza, and Fred van Lieburg, eds. Revisiting the Synod of Dort (1618–​1619). Leiden: Brill, 2011. Greaves, Richard L. “The Origins and Early Development of English Covenant Thought.” Historian 31, no. 1 (1968): 21–​35. Gumerlock, Francis X. “Gottschalk of Orbais: A Medieval Predestinarian.” Kerux 22, no. 3 (2007): 17–​34. Hamilton, Ian. “Amyraldianism: Is It Modified Calvinism?” In Confessing Our Hope: Essays Celebrating the Life and Ministry of Morton H. Smith, edited by Joseph A. Pipa Jr. and C. N. Willborn. Taylor, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 2004. Hampton, Stephen. “Samuel Ward and the Defense of Dort in England.” In Beyond Dordt and De Auxiliis: The Dynamics of Protestant and Catholic Soteriology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, edited by Jordan J. Ballor, Matthew T. Gaetano, and David S. Sytsma, 200–​218. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Han, Byung Soo. Symphonia Catholica: The Merger of Patristic and Contemporary Sources in the Theological Method of Amandus Polanus (1561–​1610). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Hanko, Herman. The History of the Free Offer. Grandville, MI: Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches, 1989. http://​www.prca.org/​pamphlets/​Free%20Offer/​ cover.htm.

Bibliography  241 Harding, Matthew S. “Atonement Theory Revisited: Calvin, Beza, and Amyraut on the Extent of the Atonement.” Perichoresis 11, no. 1 (2013): 49–​73. Harinck, C. De uitgestrecktheid van de verzoening (van de apostolische vaders tot Dordt 1618–​1619). Utrecht: De Banier, 1989. Harrison, A. W. The Beginnings of Arminianism to the Synod of Dort. London: University of London Press, 1926. Haykin, Michael A. G. “‘We Trust in the Saving Blood’: Definite Atonement in the Ancient Church.” In From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson, 57–​74. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013. Helm, Paul. Calvin and the Calvinists. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982. Hendrix, Scott H. “Deparentifying the Fathers: The Reformers and Patristic Authority.” In Auctoritas Patrum: Zur Rezeption der Kirchenväter im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert = Contributions on the Reception of the Church Fathers in the 15th and 16th century, edited by Leif Grane, Alfred Schindler, and Markus Wriedt, 55–​68. Mainz: Philipp Von Zabern, 1993. Heppe, Heinrich. Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus im sechzehnten Jahrhundert. 3 vols. Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1857. Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics. Translated by G. T. Thompson. Edited by Ernst Bizer. Reprint. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2007. Hill, George. Lectures in Divinity. Edited by Alexander Hill. Philadelphia, PA: Herman Hooker, 1842. Hodge, A. A. The Atonement. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1867. Hodge, A. A. Outlines of Theology. Rewritten and enlarged ed. New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1879. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. New York: Charles Scribner, 1872. Hogg, David S. “‘Sufficient for All, Efficient for Some’: Definite Atonement in the Medieval Church.” In From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson, 75–​95. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013. Hooker, Richard. The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker. Edited by W. Speed Hill. 7 vols. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977–​98. Horton, Michael. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011. Horton, Michael. For Calvinism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011. Hughes, Seán F. “The Problem of ‘Calvinism’: English Theologies of Predestination, c. 1580–​1630.” In Belief and Practice in Reformation England: A Tribute to Patrick Collinson from His Students, edited by Susan Wabuda and Caroline Litzenberger, 229–​ 49. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998. Hwang, Alexander Y. Intrepid Lover of Perfect Grace: The Life and Thought of Prosper Aquitaine. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2009. Kang, Hyo Ju. “The Extent of the Atonement in the Thought of John Davenant (1572–​ 1641) in the Context of the Early Modern Era.” PhD diss., University of Aberdeen, 2018. Kang, Hyo Ju. “John Davenant, a Champion of the ‘Via Media’ at the Synod of Dort?” Journal of Academic Perspectives, no. 3 (2017): 1–​24. Lachman, David C. The Marrow Controversy 1718–​1723: An Historical and Theological Analysis. Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988.

242 Bibliography Lake, Peter. “Calvinism and the English Church.” Past & Present 114 (1987): 32–​76. Lake, Peter. Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Lamberigts, M. “Co-​ operation of Church and State in the Condemnation of the Pelagians: The Case of Zosimus.” In Religious Polemics in Context: Papers Presented to the Second International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR) Held at Leiden, 27–​28 April 2000, edited by T. L. Hettema and A. Van der Kooij. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004. Lange, Joachim. Gloriae Christi ac Christianismi. 2 vols. Amsterdam: Romberg, 1740. Letham, Robert. “The Triune God, Incarnation, and Definite Atonement.” In From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson, 437–​60. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013. Letham, Robert. The Work of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Lods, Armand. “Les Actes du Colloque de Montbéliard (1586): Une Polémique entre Théodore de Bèze et Jacques Andreae.” Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français: Bulletin Historique et Littéraire, 46, no. 4 (1897): 194–​215. Lynch, Michael J. “An Apology for John Davenant: Answering an Acrimonious Critic.” Calvinist International (website). January 28, 2019. https://​calvinistinternational.com/​ 2019/​01/​28/​an-​apology-​for-​john-​davenant-​answering-​an-​acrimonious-​critic/​. Lynch, Michael J. “Confessional Orthodoxy and Hypothetical Universalism: Another Look at the Westminster Confession of Faith.” In Beyond Calvin: Essays on the Diversity of the Reformed Tradition, edited by W. Bradford Littlejohn and Jonathan Tomes. Lincoln, NE: Davenant Trust, 2017. Lynch, Michael J. “Hypothetical Universalism and Arminianism: David Pareus’ Response to the Second Remonstrant Article.” Paper presented at the 67th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Atlanta, GA, 2015. Lynch, Michael J. “Quid Pro Quo Satisfaction? An Analysis and Response to Garry Williams on Penal Substitutionary Atonement and Definite Atonement.” Evangelical Quarterly 89, no. 1 (2018): 51–​70. Lynch, Michael J. Review of From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson. Calvin Theological Journal 49, no. 2 (2014): 352–​54. Lynch, Michael J. “Richard Hooker and the Development of English Hypothetical Universalism.” In Richard Hooker and Reformed Orthodoxy, edited by W. Bradford Littlejohn and Scott N. Kindred-​ Barnes, 273–​ 93. Bristol, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Maclean, Donald John. James Durham (1622–​1658) and the Gospel Offer in Its Seventeenth-​ Century Context. Bristol, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Macleod, Donald. Christ Crucified: Understanding the Atonement. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014. Macleod, Donald. “Definite Atonement and the Divine Decree.” In From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson, 401–​36. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013. Macleod, John. Scottish Theology: In Relation to Church History Since the Reformation. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Knox Press, 1974.

Bibliography  243 Malone, Michael T. “The Doctrine of Predestination in the Thought of William Perkins and Richard Hooker.” Anglican Theological Review 52 (1970): 103–​17. Mathisen, Ralph W. Ecclesiastical Factionalism and Religious Controversy in Fifth-​Century Gaul. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989. McGraw, Ryan M. Review of The Soteriology of James Ussher. Meet the Puritans (blog), August 7, 2018. http://​www.meetthepuritans.com/​blog/​book-​review-​soteriology-​ james-​ussher-​oxford. M’Clintock, John, and James Strong. Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. 10 vols. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1867–​87. Miller, Perry. The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1983. Milner, Joseph. The History of the Church of Christ. Volume the Second containing the Fourth and Fifth Centuries. Boston: Farrand, Mallory, 1809. Milton, Anthony. “‘Anglicanism’ by Stealth: The Career and Influence of John Overall.” In Religious Politics in Post-​Reformation England: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Tyacke, edited by Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, 159–​76. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2006. Milton, Anthony. Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought 1600–​1640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Milton, Anthony. “A Distorting Mirror: The Hales and Balcanquahall Letters and the Synod of Dordt.” In Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–​1619), edited by Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg, 135–​61. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Milton, Anthony. “Introduction: Reformation, Identity, and ‘Anglicanism,’ c. 1520–​1662.” In The Oxford History of Anglicanism, edited by Anthony Milton. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Møller, Jens. “The Beginnings of Puritan Covenant Theology.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 14, no. 1 (1963): 46–​67. Moore, Jonathan D. “Calvin versus the Calvinists? The Case of John Preston (1587–​1628).” Reformation and Renaissance Review 6, no. 3 (2004): 327–​48. Moore, Jonathan D. “‘Christ Is Dead for Him’: John Preston (1587–​1628) and English Hypothetical Universalism.” PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2000. Moore, Jonathan D. English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2007. Moore, Jonathan D. “The Extent of the Atonement: English Hypothetical Universalism versus Particular Redemption.” In Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism, edited by Mark Jones and Michael A. Haykin, 124–​61. Oakville, CT: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2011. Moore, Jonathan D. “James Ussher’s Influence on the Synod of Dort.” In Revisiting the Synod of Dort (1618–​1619), edited by Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg, 163–​79. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Muller, Richard A. After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Muller, Richard A. Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012. Muller, Richard A. “Dating John Davenant’s De Gallicana controversia sententia in the Context of Debate over John Cameron: A Correction.” Calvin Theological Journal 50, no. 1 (2015): 10–​22. Muller, Richard A. “Diversity in the Reformed Tradition: A Historiographical Introduction.” In Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates

244 Bibliography within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism, edited by Mark Jones and Michael A. Haykin, 11–​30. Oakville, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Muller, Richard A. Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725. 2nd ed. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003. Muller, Richard A. Review of English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology, by Jonathan D. Moore. Calvin Theological Journal 43, no. 1 (2008): 149–​50. Muller, Richard A. “Revising the Predestination Paradigm: An Alternative to Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism, and Hypothetical Universalism.” Paper presented at the Mid-​America Fall Lecture Series, Dyer, Indiana, Fall 2008. Muller, Richard A. “A Tale of Two Wills? Calvin and Amyraut on Ezekiel 18:23.” Calvin Theological Journal 44 (2009): 211–​25. Muller, Richard A. “Toward the Pactum Salutis: Locating the Origins of a Concept.” Mid-​ America Journal of Theology 18 (2007): 11–​65. Muller, Richard A. The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Münscher, Wilhelm. Handbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte. 4 vols. Warburg: Neue akademische Buchhandlung, 1798. Murray, John. Collected Writings of John Murray. 4 vols. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976–​82. Newman, John Henry. The Via Media of the Anglican Church: Illustrated in Lectures, Letters, and Tracts Written between 1830 and 1841. 2 vols. London: Basil Montagu, 1877. Newman, John Henry. Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification. London: Rivingtons, 1890. Nicole, Roger. “Amyraldism.” In New Dictionary of Theology, edited by Sinclair Ferguson, David F. Wright, and J. I. Packer. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988. Nicole, Roger. “Brief Survey of the Controversy on Universal Grace (1634–​1661).” In Standing Forth: Collected Writings of Roger Nicole, 313–​30. Geanies House, Fearn: Mentor, 2002. Nicole, Roger. “John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement.” Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985): 197–​225. Nicole, Roger. “Moyse Amyraut (1596–​1664) and the Controversy on Universal Grace.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1966. Noris, Enrico. Historia Pelagiana. . . . Pisa: Io. Paulus Giovanelli and Soc. Lucas, 1764. Patterson, W. B. King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Patterson, W. B. William Perkins and the Making of a Protestant England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Petavius, Dionysius. De Pelagianorum, et Semipelagianorum dogmatum historia. In Opus de Theologicus Dogmatibus . . . Tomus Tertius. Venice: Andrae Polet, 1745. Platt, John. “The British Delegation and the Framing of the Second Head of Doctrine at the Synod of Dort.” Unpublished paper. Platt, John. “Eirenical Anglicans at the Synod of Dort.” In Reform and Reformation: England and the Continent c. 1500–​c. 1750, edited by Derek Baker, 221–​43. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1979. Platt, John. “Les Anglais à Dordrecht.” In La Controverse Interne au Protestantisme (XVIe–​XXe siècles), edited by Michel Peronnet, 109–​28. Montpellier: Université Paul-​ Valéry, 1983.

Bibliography  245 Ponter, David W. “Review Essay (Part One): John Calvin on the Death of Christ and the Reformation’s Forgotten Doctrine of Universal Vicarious Satisfaction: A Review and Critique of Tom Nettles’ Chapter in Whomever He Wills.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 55, no. 1 (2012): 139–​59. Ponter, David W. “Review Essay (Part Two): John Calvin on the Death of Christ and the Reformation’s Forgotten Doctrine of Universal Vicarious Satisfaction: A Review and Critique of Tom Nettles’ Chapter in Whomever He Wills.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 55, no. 2 (2013): 253–​71. Powell, Hunter. The Crisis of British Protestantism: Church Power in the Puritan Revolution, 1638–​44. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015. Proctor, Leonard. “The Theology of Moise Amyraut Considered as a Reaction against Seventeenth-​Century Calvinism.” PhD diss., University of Leeds, 1952. Quantin, Jean-​Louis. The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Quantin, Jean-​Louis. “The Fathers in Seventeenth Century Anglican Theology.” In The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, edited by Irena Backus, 2:987–​1008. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Quantin, Jean-​Louis. “The Fathers in Seventeenth Century Roman Catholic Theology.” In The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, edited by Irena Backus, 2:951–​86. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Rainbow, Jonathan H. The Will of God and the Cross: An Historical and Theological Study of John Calvin’s Doctrine of Limited Redemption. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1990. Raitt, Jill. The Colloquy of Montbéliard: Religion and Politics in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Roberts, Jonathan. “The Nature of God and Predestination in John Davenant’s Dissertatio De Praedestinatione et Reprobatione.” Master’s thesis. University of Missouri, St. Louis, 2017. Rolston, Holmes, III. John Calvin versus the Westminster Confession. Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1972. Rouwendal, P. L. “Calvin’s Forgotten Classical Position on the Extent of the Atonement: About Sufficiency, Efficiency, and Anachronism.” Westminster Theological Journal 70, no. 2 (2008): 317–​35. Sabatier, André. Étude historique sur l’universalisme hypothétique de Moïse Amyraut. Toulouse: A. Chauvin, 1867. Schaff, Philip. Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiae Universalis: The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes. 3 vols. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877. Schweizer, Alexander. Die protestantischen Centraldogmen in ihrer Entwicklung innerhalb der reformirten Kirche. 2 vols. Zurich: Orell, Fuessli, 1856. Schweizer, Alexander. “Moses Amyraldus: Versuch einer Synthese des Universalismus und des Partikularismus.” In Theologische Jahrbücher, edited by F. C. Baur and E. Zeller, 11:41–​101, 155–​207. 16 vols. Tübingen: Ludwig Friedrich Fues, 1852. Scott, Thomas, trans. The Articles of the Synod of Dort. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856. Shand, Mark. “John Davenant: A Jewel of the Reformed Churches or a Tarnished Stone?” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal 31, no. 2 (1998): 43–​69. Shand, Mark. “John Davenant: A Jewel of the Reformed Churches or a Tarnished Stone? (2)” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal 32, no. 1 (1998): 20–​28.

246 Bibliography Shedd, William G. T. Dogmatic Theology. 3rd ed. Edited by Alan W. Gomes. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2003. Sinnema, Donald W. “The Drafting of the Canons of Dordt: A Preliminary Survey of Early Drafts and Related Documents.” In Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–​1619), edited by Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg, 291–​311. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Sinnema, Donald W. “The Issue of Reprobation at the Synod of Dort (1618–​19) in Light of the History of this Doctrine.” PhD diss., St Michael’s College, 1985. Smeaton, George. The Doctrine of the Atonement, as Taught by the Apostles; Or, the Sayings of the Apostles Exegetically Expounded. With Historical Appendix. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870. Smith, Thomas A. De Gratia: Faustus of Riez’s Treatise on Grace and Its Place in the History of Theology. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990. Snoddy, Richard. The Soteriology of James Ussher: The Act and Object of Saving Faith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Snoddy, Richard. “The Sources of James Ussher’s Patristic Citations on the Intent and Sufficiency of Christ’s Satisfaction.” In Learning from the Past: Essays on Reception, Catholicity and Dialogue in Honour of Anthony N. S. Lane, edited by John Balserak and Richard Snoddy, 107–​29. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Stanglin, Keith D., and Thomas H. McCall. Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Strehle, Stephen. “The Extent of the Atonement and the Synod of Dort.” Westminster Theological Journal 51, no. 1 (1989): 1–​23. Strehle, Stephen. “The Extent of the Atonement within the Theological Systems of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.” PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980. Strehle, Stephen. “Universal Grace and Amyraldianism.” Westminster Theological Journal 51 (1989): 345–​57. Sytsma, David S. “Aquinas in Service of Dordt: John Davenant on Predestination, Grace, and Free Choice.” In Beyond Dordt and De Auxiliis: The Dynamics of Protestant and Catholic Soteriology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Edited by Jordan J. Ballor, Matthew T. Gaetano, and David S. Sytsma, 169–​199. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Thomas, G. Michael. The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (1536–​1675). Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1997. Todd, Margo. “Justifying God: The Calvinisms of the British Delegation to the Synod of Dort.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 96, no. 1 (2005): 272–​90. Torrance, James B. “Covenant or Contract? A Study of the Theological Background of Worship in Seventeenth-​Century Scotland.” Scottish Journal of Theology 23, no. 1 (1970): 51–​76. Torrance, James B. “The Incarnation and ‘Limited Atonement.’” Evangelical Quarterly 55 (1983): 83–​94. Trinterud, Leonard J. “The Origins of Puritanism.” Church History 20, no. 1 (1951): 37–​57. Troxel, A. Craig. “Amyraut ‘at’ the Assembly: The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Extent of the Atonement.” Presbyterion 22, no. 1 (1996): 43–​55. Trueman, Carl R. “Amyraldianism.” Modern Reformation 21, no. 1 (2012): 60–​61. Tyacke, Nicholas. Anti-​ Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism c. 1590–​ 1640. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. Tyacke, Nicholas. Aspects of English Protestantism c. 1530–​1700. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001.

Bibliography  247 Van Asselt, Willem J., et al. Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. Translated by Albert Gootjes. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage, 2011. Van Itterzon, G. P. “Engelse Belangstelling Voor De Canones Van Dordrecht.” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 48, no. 2 (1968): 267–​80. Van Raalte, Ted G. “The French Reformed Synods of the Seventeenth Century.” In The Theology of the French Reformed Churches: From Henry IV to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, edited by Martin I. Klauber, 57–​97. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014. van Stam, Frans Pieter. The Controversy over the Theology of Saumur, 1635–​1650: Disrupting Debates among the Huguenots in Complicated Circumstances. Amsterdam: APA–​ Holland University Press, 1988. Venema, Cornelis P. “Predestination and Election.” In Reformation Theology: A Systematic Summary, edited by Matthew Barrett. Wheaton: Crossway, 2017. Vitringa, Campegius. Doctrina Christianae Religionis, per Aphorismos Summatim Descripta. . . . Edited by Martinus Vitringa. 6th ed. Pars VI. Leiden: Joannes le Mair, 1776. Voak, Nigel. “English Molinism in the Late 1590’s: Richard Hooker on Free Will, Predestination, and Divine Foreknowledge.” Journal of Theological Studies 60 no. 1 (2009): 130–​77. von Mosheim, Johann Lorenz. Institutionum Historae Ecclesiasticae Antiquae et Recentioris. Helmstedt: Christianus Fridericus Weygand, 1755. Vos, Geerhardus. “The Scriptural Doctrine of the Love of God.” In Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, edited by Richard B. Gaffin Jr., 425–​57. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2001. Warfield, B. B. The Plan of Salvation. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1915. Warfield, B. B. Studies in Tertullian and Augustine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1930. Warfield, B. B. Studies in Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1932. Warfield, B. B. The Westminster Assembly and Its Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1931. Weaver, Rebecca Harden. Divine Grace and Human Agency: A Study of the Semi-​Pelagian Controversy. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996. Wenkel, David. “Amyraldianism: Theological Criteria for Identification and Comparative Analysis.” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 11, no. 2 (2005): 83–​96. Wermelinger, Otto. Rom und Pelagius: Die theologische Position der römischen Bischöfe im pelagianischen Streit in den Jahren 411–​432. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1975. White, Peter. Predestination, Policy and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. White, Peter. “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered.” Past & Present 101 (1983): 34–​54. White, Peter. “The via media in the Early Stuart Church.” In The Early Stuart Church, 1603–​1642, edited by Kenneth Fincham, 211–​30. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993. Wiggers, G. F. An Historical Presentation of Augustinism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources. Translated by Ralph Emerson. Andover, MA: Gould, Newman & Saxton, 1840.

248 Bibliography Wilkes, Washington. A Fearless Defence of the Leading Doctrines, Preached and Received by Modern Antinomians, Succinctly Stated in Seven Letters to His Friends. London: L. J. Higham and T. Davis, 1830. Williams, Carol A. “The Decree of Redemption Is in Effect a Covenant: David Dickson and the Covenant of Redemption.” PhD diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2005. Williams, Garry J. “Punishment God Cannot Twice Inflict: The Double Payment Argument Redivivus.” In From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson, 483–​515. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013. Williams, Garry J. “The Definite Intent of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.” In From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson, 461–​483. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013. Woolsey, Andrew A. Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage, 2012. Yang, Andrew S. “Scotus’ Voluntarist Approach to the Atonement Reconsidered.” Scottish Journal of Theology 62, no. 4 (2009): 421–​40.

Index For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–​53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages. 1571 Canons of Church Discipline, 23, 28, 174n.118   Abbot, George, 73, 81, 84–​85, 164n.11 Adam, Gottfried, 192n.43 Allen, David, 11, 26–​27 Allison, C. Fitzimons, 5 Allport, Josiah, 4, 198n.2 Alsted, Johann Heinrich, 8–​9 Alting, Heinrich, 24, 44, 50, 111, 193n.72, 195n.96, 210–​11n.15 Alvarez, Domingo, 127–​28 Ambrose, 24, 26, 28–​29, 78, 112, 126 Ames, William, 18, 35–​36, 77–​78, 104–​5, 118–​19, 121, 199n.32, 206–​7n.156 Amyraldianism, 3–​4, 5, 6, 7, 8–​10, 11–​12, 13–​14, 16, 101, 157–​58, 162, 166n.21, 173n.104 Amyraut, Moïse, 7, 13–​14, 16 See also Amyraldianism Andreae, Jacob, 53–​55, 56–​57, 58, 68–​69, 194n.75, 194n.76 Andrewes, Lancelot, 80 Aretius, Benedict, 51 Arminianism. See Remonstrants Arminius, Jacob, 49, 58–​61, 65–​67, 69, 74–​ 75, 79, 84, 92–​93, 95–​96, 103, 105–​6, 125, 127, 206n.147 Arrowsmith, John, 1 Augustine, 1, 19–​20, 24, 25–​26, 27, 28, 29–​41, 43, 46–​47, 60, 90–​91, 99, 105, 120, 123, 124, 125–​26, 127–​ 29, 148–​49, 150–​51, 154–​55, 161, 224n.50   Backus, Irena, 175n.1, 180n.67 Bailey, Hunter, 9

Balcanquhall, Walter, 73, 81 Báñez, Domingo, 123, 138–​39, 157 Baro, Peter, 57–​58 Baron, Robert, 174n.115 Barrett, Matthew, 198n.3, 198n.4 Bavinck, Herman, 167n.27, 178n.32, 183n.112, 188n.1 Baxter, Richard and Augustine, 30, 33 and Davenant, 1–​2, 74 on hypothetical universalism, 3–​4, 15, 16, 74, 130, 147, 173n.104, 191n.37 Bede the Venerable, 126 Bernard, Nicholas, 74 Beza, Theodore, 20, 24, 44, 53–​56, 57–​58, 60–​61, 65–​66, 68–​69, 75, 79, 104, 146, 211n.32 Bierma, Lyle D., 132, 188n.4 Blacketer, Raymond, 26, 39, 188n.1, 190n.29 Blocher, Henry A. G., 101–​2, 166n.18, 172n.86 Blondel, David, 3–​4 Bocer, Heinrich, 213n.59 den Boer, William, 193n.73, 195n.98 Boersma, Hans, 188n.10, 224n.71 Bogerman, Johannes, 34–​35, 37–​38, 81, 85–​86, 88, 89, 203n.117 Bonner, Gerald, 180n.59 Borreus, Adrian, 58–​59, 74–​75, 84, 95–​96, 103, 105–​6 Bray, Gerald, 165n.14 Breitinger, Johann, 96–​97 Brinsley, John, 174n.113 Bucer, Martin, 120, 124 Bullinger, Heinrich, 8–​9, 19, 51, 189n.17 Burton, William, 57–​58 

250 Index Caelestius, 30–​31 Calvin, John, 19, 24, 48–​49, 50–​51, 52, 79–​ 80, 108, 120, 124, 139–​40, 141, 146, 186n.153, 215n.118 Cameron, John, 2, 6, 9–​10, 11–​12, 13–​14, 19, 129–​30, 140, 162 de Campos Júnior, Heber Carlos, 211n.29 Canons of Dordt. See Synod of Dordt Carleton, Dudley, 73, 81 Carleton, George, 8–​9, 73, 81, 82, 203n.117, 206n.147, 207n.159 Carpenter, Marc D., 6 Casiday, A. M. C., 184n.125 Chrysostom, 120 Church of England and early church, 23–​24, 73 and Reformed orthodoxy, 2, 4, 5–​6, 8, 19, 72–​73, 79–​80, 83, 84–​85, 99, 110, 173n.111 Clark, R. Scott, 210n.6 Clausen, Sara Jean, 5–​6, 164n.10 Clement of Alexandria, 28–​29 Clement of Rome, 26 Collier, Jay, 165n.16, 181n.77, 194n.74, 198n.14 Colloquy of Montbéliard, 49, 53–​55, 68–​ 69, 75 Como, David, 165–​66n.17 Compton, Jared, 11 Contra-​Remonstrants on Christ died only for the elect, 15, 64–​ 65, 103–​6, 107–​22 on efficacy of Christ’s death, 55, 62, 63–​64, 66 on gospel offer, 63–​64 at Hague Conference of 1611, 61–​68, 77–​78, 103–​4 on ipso facto remission of sins, 75, 78–​79 on order of decrees, 63–​64 on sufficiency of Christ’s death, 62, 63–​ 65, 66, 103–​6, 107–​22, 125 and the term, 18 Corvinus, Johannes, 103, 106, 127, 128–​29 Council of Carthage (418), 31, 35 Council of Ephesus (431), 31 Council of Mainz (848), 42–​43 Council of Quierzy (849), 42–​43 Council of Valence (855), 42–​43

Crisp, Oliver, 11 Crocius, Ludovicus, 8–​9, 108 Culverwell, Ezekiel, 74, 108 Cunningham, William, 76–​77, 167–​ 68n.28, 188n.1, 213n.78   Daillé, Jean, 25, 130, 186n.152 Davenant, John Animadversions, 132, 143–​44, 149–​50, 159–​60, 201n.67, 211n.32, 221n.82, 221n.88, 222n.26, 223n.34 on baptism, 2, 33–​34, 43, 125–​26 and Contra-​Remonstrants, 34–​35, 51, 67, 83, 101–​2, 103–​6, 107–​22, 158, 193n.72, 195n.96 De Gallicana controversia sententia, 2, 9–​10, 13–​14, 19, 129–​30 De Justitia Habituali et Actuali, 134 De Morte Christi, 1–​2, 11–​12, 18, 19–​21, 27, 28–​29, 36–​37, 40, 49, 60–​61, 67, 71, 84, 99, 101–​31, 134, 147, 154, 156–​57, 161–​62, 203n.119, 218n.11 De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione, 209n.186, 219n.31, 219n.38, 221n.83, 221n.84, 221n.88, 222n.26, 222n.28, 224n.50, 224n.51 on early church, 23–​24, 27, 28–​41, 46–​47, 105, 110, 119–​20, 123, 124, 125–​26, 127, 128, 148–​49, 161 on early Reformed and work of Christ, 51, 110, 119–​20, 124, 161 on eternal justification, 106, 125 Expositio Epistolae D. Pauli ad Colossenses, 209n.196, 214n.87, 216n.126, 219n.33, 222n.26 on God’s absolute and ordained power, 138–​40 on grace of God, 83, 84–​85, 106, 126–​ 30, 138, 140, 152–​53, 156 and infralapsarianism, 144–​45 and his interpreters, 4–​13, 16, 101–​2, 154–​55, 156, 161, 162 “Dr. John Davenant on the Atonement,” 82, 83, 86–​87 on Jn. 3:16, 89, 108 and Lutherans, 58–​59, 84–​85, 88, 103, 105–​6, 126 and pactum salutis, 144

Index  251 on Pelagianism and semi-​Pelagianism, 36–​37, 128–​29, 140 on providence and predestination, 138, 152–​54, 159–​60 on providential will (voluntas providentialis), 152–​53, 157, 158, 159 and Remonstrants, 35–​36, 58–​59, 67, 84, 101–​3, 105, 106, 111, 117–​18, 122–​30, 140 on signified will (voluntas signi), 150–​ 51, 152, 153–​54 at the Synod of Dordt, 1, 5, 6–​7, 8–​9, 11–​12, 70–​100, 105 on 1 Tim. 2:4, 150–​51, 183–​84n.115 on Trinity, 10–​11, 154–​56, 169n.37 on will of good pleasure (voluntas beneplaciti), 137, 150, 151, 153–​54, 157, 158–​60 on will of simple complacency (voluntas simplicis complacentiae), 137, 149–​ 52, 158–​60 See also hypothetical universalism Denis the Carthusian, 45 Dickson, David, 221n.78 Diodati, Jean, 88, 96–​97, 203n.117, 206n.153 Doolittle, Thomas, 1–​2 Du Moulin, Pierre, 9–​10 Duns Scotus, 45, 120–​21, 126, 139, 144 Durandus of Saint-​Pourçain, 45   Eglin, Raphael, 141–​42 Ella, George, 6 Elrington, Charles Richard, 198n.2 Eusebius of Caesarea, 28–​29, 181n.70   Faukelius, Hermannus, 203n.117 Faustus of Riez, 35–​36, 40–​41 Ferguson, Sinclair, 200n.44 Ferrari, Joseph Anthony, 177n.18 Fesko, J. V., 165–​66n.17, 188n.1, 198n.14 Forbes, John, 181n.81, 185n.147, 186n.148, 202n.89 Fulgentius, 19, 27, 28 Fuller, Morris, 4, 163n.4   Gale, Theophilus, 16, 223n.45 Garcia, Mark A., 219n.50

Gatiss, Lee, 10–​11, 71, 99, 166n.20, 199n.39, 202n.98 Gibson, David, 10–​11, 70–​71, 147–​48 Gibson, Jonathan, 10–​11, 70–​71, 147–​48, 154–​55, 157–​58 Gill, John, 25, 26 Goad, Thomas, 8–​9, 73 Godfrey, W. Robert, 5, 7, 25, 61, 70, 85, 188n.1, 190n.27, 198n.2, 201n.76, 221n.80 Gomarus, Franciscus, 7, 116–​17, 179n.56, 194n.77, 211n.22, 212n.44, 214n.100 Goodwin, John, 25, 182n.95, 195n.96 Gootjes, Albert, 166n.21 Gottschalk of Orbais, 19–​20, 25, 26, 27, 42–​43 Goudriaan, Aza, 180n.67 Gregory the Great, 41–​42, 46, 222n.27 Grevinchovius, Nicolaas, 35–​36, 77–​78, 84, 91–​92, 97–​98, 103, 123 Grotius, Hugo, 34 Grynaeus, Johann Jacob, 55, 141–​42 Gwalther, Rudolf, 189n.15   Hague Conference of 1611, 18, 61–​68, 77–​ 78, 86, 87, 103–​4, 111–​12, 116, 118, 137, 211n.32 Haimo of Halberstadt, 41–​42 Hales, John, 81 Hall, Joseph, 3–​4, 8–​9, 13–​14, 73, 163n.5 Hanko, Herman, 6 Harinck, C., 176n.12, 176–​77n.13, 178n.26, 179n.48, 188n.1 Haykin, Michael, 26, 38–​40, 183–​84n.115 Helm, Paul, 6 Hemmingsen, Niels, 193n.73, 194n.75, 194n.76 Heppe, Heinrich, 132, 220n.69 Hilary of Poitiers, 26, 39 Hildebrand, Herman, 2, 13–​14, 25, 51, 177n.15, 186n.152, 187n.161 Hill, George, 132 Hincmar, 42–​43 Hoard, Samuel, 132, 149–​50, 160 Hogg, David S., 26 Homes, Nathanael, 174n.112 Horton, Michael, 166n.19, 167–​68n.28

252 Index Huber, Samuel, 14–​15, 37–​38, 55–​57, 58–​59, 62, 68–​69, 84, 103, 125, 126, 194n.76, 194n.82 Hugh of St. Victor, 150 Hughes, Seán F., 165–​66n.17 Hwang, Alexander, 31, 180n.59, 180n.67 Hypothetical universalism and angels, 86–​87, 89–​90, 105–​6, 107–​8, 111, 118–​21 and conditional/​evangelical decree/​ covenant, 10–​11, 16, 82, 83, 86, 88, 99, 109–​10, 113–​14, 116, 123, 132, 133–​34, 135, 143–​44, 151–​52, 155–​56 and Contra-​Remonstrants, 34–​35, 51, 67, 74–​75, 76, 77–​80, 86–​87, 88, 101–​ 2, 103–​6, 107–​22, 193n.72, 195n.96 and covenant theology, 21–​22, 132–​33, 135–​43, 145–​46, 161–​62 and early church, 23–​47, 72, 82, 90–​91, 105, 123, 126, 127, 161 and efficacy, 122–​26 and gospel offer, 72, 83, 86, 87, 89–​90, 93, 95, 105–​6, 108, 109, 135, 137, 142–​43, 150–​51, 155–​56, 161–​62 and impetration, 76–​78, 84, 92–​93, 94, 96, 99, 105–​6, 124–​26, 206n.147 and love of God, 10–​11, 52, 89–​90, 108, 138 and Reformed orthodoxy, 2–​4, 5–​12, 13–​15, 20–​22, 70–​72, 82–​83, 85, 99–​ 100, 101–​31, 146, 160, 161–​62 and Remonstrants, 35–​36, 58–​59, 67, 74–​75, 76–​78, 79–​80, 84, 91–​93, 97–​ 98, 101–​3, 105, 106 and sufficiency of Christ’s death, 12, 19, 52, 57–​58, 59, 60, 68, 72, 79–​80, 82, 85, 86, 88, 89–​90, 93, 99, 107–​22, 142–​43, 161–​62, 193n.72 and the term, 2–​4, 5, 8–​9, 13–​18 and Trinity, 10–​11, 154–​56 and will of God, 10–​11, 21–​22, 76, 79–​81, 82, 87, 88, 90, 91–​92, 101, 102, 106–​7, 130–​31, 137–​38, 150–​75, 153, 161 as “universal cause of salvation,” 46, 107–​12 and universal satisfaction, 28–​29, 45–​46, 52–​53, 74–​76, 90, 91–​92, 99, 109–​10, 138, 161–​62 as via media, 2–​4, 7, 9, 15, 18–​19, 72

Infra-​and supralapsarianism, 5–​ 6, 144–​45   Jansen, Cornelius, 30, 32 Jerome, 26 Junius, Franciscus, 120 Justin Martyr, 26   Kang, Hyo Ju, 11–​12, 202n.100, 223n.36, 223n.39 Kendall, George, 199n.23 Kimedoncius, Jacob, 14, 24, 37–​38, 44, 56, 161, 186n.152 King James I, 1, 72–​73, 79–​80, 82, 84–​85   Lachman, David, 132 Lake, Arthur, 80–​81, 198n.19 Lake, Peter, 9, 194n.74 Lambeth Articles, 57–​58, 80 Lange, Joachim, 172–​73n.101, 173n.102 Leigh, Edward, 222n.12 Letham, Robert, 10–​11, 78, 156, 224n.55 Lombardian formula, 2–​3, 11, 19–​20, 24, 25, 26, 32, 37–​38, 43–​47, 48–​69, 79–​80, 101–​2, 103–​5, 106–​7, 108, 113–​22, 123–​24, 130–​31, 158, 161–​ 62, 214n.97 Lubbertus, Sibrandus, 211n.22 Lucidus, 40–​41 Luther, Martin, 50 Lyford, William, 173n.109   Maccovius, Johannes, 222n.12 Macleod, Donald, 10–​11, 148, 187n.172 Martinius, Matthias, 7, 8–​9, 81 Mathisen, Ralph, 41, 184n.124 Maurice of Nassau, 73 McCall, Thomas H., 194n.78 McGraw, Ryan, 189n.17 Melanchthon, Phillip, 19, 51 Miller, Perry, 132, 141 Milton, Anthony, 72–​73, 83, 165n.16, 165–​66n.17, 169n.39, 175n.130, 175–​ 76n.2, 176n.4, 178n.39, 201n.72 Moller, Martin, 51 de Montoya, Diego Ruiz, 149–​50, 159–​60, 223n.34, 223n.45, 224n.74

Index  253 Moore, Jonathan on hypothetical universalism, 8–​9, 130–​ 31, 132–​33, 165–​66n.17 on James Ussher, 79, 198n.2, 199n.27, 214n.101 on John Davenant’s theology, 8–​9, 130–​31, 132–​33, 140–​41, 144, 145, 214n.101, 218n.22 on William Perkins, 9, 145 von Mosheim, Johann Lorenz, 172–​73n.101 Muller, Richard A. on “Calvin vs. the Calvinists,” 165n.16 on covenant theology, 218n.16, 220–​21n.76 on diversity in the Reformed tradition, 165–​66n.17 on hypothetical universalism, 8–​10, 188n.1, 219n.35 on John Davenant, 8–​10, 13–​14, 217n.146 on the role of early church in Reformed orthodoxy, 23–​24 on terminology, 17 Murray, John, 77 Musculus, Wolfgang, 8–​9, 14, 19, 51, 108, 124, 189n.17   Newman, John Henry, 15, 168n.31 Nicole, Roger, 166n.21, 167n.27, 167–​68n.28   van Oldenbarnevelt, Johan, 73 Origen, 28–​29 Overall, John, 23, 79–​80, 99, 113, 141, 142–​43, 169n.41 Owen, John, 25, 28, 121, 147, 148, 158, 162   Pareus, David, 19, 24, 37–​38, 50, 51, 52, 55–​57, 60–​61, 110, 161, 186n.152, 190–​91n.30, 206n.147 Patterson, W. B., 165–​66n.17, 195n.97, 198n.15 Pelagius and Pelagianism, 26, 28–​41, 56–​57, 90–​91, 98, 105, 124, 128–​29, 148, 163n.6 Perkins, William, 9, 34, 49, 58–​61, 65–​66, 133, 140–​41, 142–​43, 145, 146, 163n.5, 183n.112 Peter Lombard, 19, 43–​44, 150 See also Lombardian formula Petrus Galatinus, 45

Pezel, Christoph, 51 Piscator, Johann, 44, 57–​58, 60–​61, 65–​66, 68–​69, 79, 104, 113, 114, 116–​18, 121, 211n.32 Platt, John, 5, 80, 197n.1 Polhill, Edward, 212n.45 Polyander, Johannes, 203n.117, 211n.22 Ponter, David, 189–​90n.18 Pope Innocent III, 44 Pope Leontius, 40–​41 Pope Nicholas I, 42–​43 Pope Zosimus, 31 Powell, Hunter, 165–​66n.17 Preston, John, 8, 74, 132–​33, 163n.5 Proctor, Leonard, 166n.21 Prosper, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31–​34, 35–​36, 37–​40, 41–​42, 44, 60, 82, 90–​91, 105, 125–​26, 128 Pucci, Francesco, 56–​57, 103, 125, 194n.76, 194n.82   Raalte, Ted G. Van, 165–​66n.17 Rainbow, Jonathan, 25, 38 Raitt, Jill, 190n.28 Remigius of Lyon, 42–​43 Remigius of Rheims, 41–​42 Remonstrants and angels, 62–​63, 66, 111 and early church, 25, 35–​36, 60, 105 and efficacy of Christ’s death, 15, 55, 59–​ 60, 65, 66–​67, 102–​3, 122–​26 and Five Remonstrant Articles, 61–​62, 66, 70, 80–​82, 84, 85 and gospel offer, 62–​63 at Hague Conference of 1611, 61–​68, 103, 111 and infant salvation, 58–​59 and order of the decrees, 62–​63, 65, 91–​92, 97–​98 and sufficiency of Christ’s death, 14, 59–​ 60, 63, 65–​67, 92–​93 and universal grace, 126–​30 Rivet, Andre, 13–​14 Roberts, Jonathan, 221n.82, 221n.84 Rolandus, Jacobus, 203n.117 Rouwendal, P. L., 48–​49, 68, 188n.10 Rupert of Deutz, 142–​43 Rutherford, Samuel, 17, 147, 148 Rütimeyer, Mark, 96–​97 

254 Index Sabatier André, 166n.21 Schweizer, Alexander, 3–​4 Scotus, Duns, 45, 120–​21, 126, 139, 144 Scultetus, Abraham, 203n.117 Shand, Mark, 6–​7 Sibelius, Caspar, 206–​7n.156, 208n.175, 209n.194 Sinnema, Donald, 85–​86 Smeaton, George, 3–​4, 16, 167–​68n.28, 177n.19, 200n.49 Snecanus, Gellius, 194n.76 Snoddy, Richard, 177n.14, 199n.22, 200n.48, 200n.50 Sohnius, George, 51 van Stam, Frans Pieter, 172–​73n.101 Stanglin, Keith, 194n.78 Strangius, Johannes, 149 Strehle, Stephen, 188n.1, 201n.76 Suárez, Francisco, 123–​24, 219n.45 Synod of Arles (473), 40–​41, 42 Synod of Dordt background of, 72–​73 and Bremen delegates, 8–​9, 93, 96–​97 and British delegates, 5, 6–​7, 8–​10, 11–​12, 21, 30, 36–​37, 51, 70–​100, 105, 144–​45, 161, 210n.4 and British suffrage (Judicia), 36–​37, 71, 81, 82–​85 and Dutch professors, 211n.22 and Hessian delegates, 104–​5, 114, 137 and hypothetical universalism, 2–​3, 5, 6–​7, 8–​9, 11–​12, 21, 70, 71, 93–​94, 95–​96, 99–​100, 161 and Nassau delegates, 8–​9, 103–​4, 116 and Palatine delegates, 105–​6, 111–​12 and the Second Head of Doctrine, 5, 12, 36–​37, 49, 70, 71–​72, 85–​98, 102–​3, 123, 125, 180n.58, 183n.104 and Swiss delegates, 96–​97, 111–​12 Synod of Lyon (474), 40–​41, 42 Sytsma, David S., 216–​17n.144, 221n.82   Theodoret, 126 Thirty-​Nine Articles, 79–​80, 81, 83, 110, 134–​35 Thomas Aquinas, 19, 23–​24, 26, 44–​46, 107–​8, 125–​27, 138–​40, 148–​50, 152–​54, 159–​60, 215n.119, 216n.131, 222n.27

Thomas, G. Michael, 7 Thomson, Richard, 106 Thysius, Antonius, 211n.22 Todd, Margo, 9, 197n.1, 201n.75 Torrance, James B., 132, 145 Tossanus, Daniel, 55–​56 Trigland, Jacobus, 203n.117 Troughton, William, 17 Troxel, A. Craig, 167–​68n.28, 173n.102 Turretin, Benedict, 96–​97 Turretin, Francis, 157–​58, 220n.55 Twisse, William, 191n.36, 193n.73, 194–​ 95n.87, 195n.95, 210–​11n.15   Ursinus, Zacharias, 8–​9, 19, 50, 51, 52, 75–​ 76, 78–​79, 189n.17 Ussher, James and Davenant, 1–​2 and early church, 25, 72, 78 and hypothetical universalism, 8–​9, 15, 21, 25, 68, 70, 72, 74–​79, 92–​93, 99, 112, 113, 198n.2   Vásquez, Gabriel, 151 Vermigli, Peter Martyr, 51, 139–​40, 186n.153 Vincent of Lérins, 29–​30, 32, 35–​36 Vitringa, Campegius, 179n.51, 190n.26, 214n.87 Voetius, Gisbertus, 1–​2, 48–​49, 60–​61, 68, 79, 186n.154, 193n.72, 194–​95n.87, 195n.96 Vorstius, Conrad, 98, 124, 210n.8 Vossius, Gerhard Johann, 25, 128–​29, 180n.59, 210n.8   Walaeus, Antonius, 120, 203n.117, 211n.22, 211n.29 Ward, Samuel and hypothetical universalism, 3–​4, 6, 71, 80–​81, 198n.19 at the Synod of Dordt, 3–​4, 6–​7, 8–​9, 71, 72, 73, 74, 81, 96–​97 See also Synod of Dordt Warfield, B. B., 156, 167–​68n.28, 173n.102, 180n.62 Washburn, E. A., 168n.29 White, Peter, 9, 169n.39, 169n.41, 194n.74, 197n.1

Index  255 Willet, Andrew, 194n.76 Williams, Garry J., 172n.85, 199n.27 Windeck, Johann, 24, 186n.152 Witsius, Herman, 33–​34, 163–​64n.9

Woolsey, Andrew, 140–​41, 218n.16, 218n.21   Zanchi, Girolamo, 8–​9, 51, 108, 124