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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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 nonspeculative 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
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
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 nonAmyraldian 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
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
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 Arminianleaning 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 chapters 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
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
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 seventeenthcentury 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,
with the rise of what the Reformed deemed as unorthodox Lutheran views (such as the teachings of Samuel Huber) and what might be called protoRemonstrant 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
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.
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
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 “ContraRemonstrants” 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
