John Davenants Hypothetical Universalism A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy Michael J Lynch Full Chapter

John Davenant's Hypothetical
Universalism: A Defense of Catholic

and Reformed Orthodoxy Michael J.
Lynch
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/john-davenants-hypothetical-universalism-a-defense-
of-catholic-and-reformed-orthodoxy-michael-j-lynch/
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 ix
Abbreviations xi
1. Prolegomena 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Survey of Literature 4
1.3 Definition of Terms 13
1.3.1 The Term “Hypothetical Universalism” 13
1.3.2 Other Terms 17
1.4 Thesis 18
1.5 Outline of Argument 19
2. The Extent of Christ’s Work from the Early Church to Gottschalk 23
2.1 Introduction 23
2.2 Patristic Period 28
2.2.1 Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and Semi-Pelagianism 29
2.2.2 Faustus, Lucidus, and the Synod of Arles 40
2.3 The Early Medieval Period 41
2.4 Scholasticism and the Lombardian Formula 43
2.5 Conclusion 46
3. The Lombardian Formula in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth
Century 48
3.1 Introduction 48
3.2 The Early Modern Period and the Lombardian Formula 50
3.2.1 Reformation Period 50
3.2.2 Late Sixteenth-Century Lutheran and Reformed Polemics 53
3.2.3 Jacob Arminius and William Perkins 58
3.2.4 The Hague Conference of 1611 61
3.3 Conclusion 68
4. John Davenant and the Synod of Dordt 70
4.1 Introduction 70
4.2 English Hypothetical Universalism and the Precursors to the
Synod of Dordt 72
4.2.1 James Ussher and the Emergence of English
Hypothetical Universalism 74
4.2.2 Bishop Overall’s Via Media 79
viii Contents
4.3 The British Delegation and the Second Main Point of Doctrine 80
4.3.1 The British Suffrage 82
4.3.2 The British Influence on the Formation of the
Second Main Doctrine 85
4.4 Conclusion 99
5. John Davenant on the Extent of Christ’s Atoning Work 101
5.1 Introduction 101
5.2 Davenant’s Interlocutors: A Taxonomy of Positions 102
5.3 Contra the Contra-Remonstrants 107
5.3.1 Universal Cause of Salvation 107
5.3.2 Ordained Sufficiency 113
5.4 Contra the Remonstrants 122
5.4.1 Christ Died Effectually for the Elect Alone 122
5.4.2 Actual Reconciliation and Remission of Sins Conditioned
on Faith and Repentance 124
5.4.3 No Obligation to Provide the Means of Application to All 126
5.5 Conclusion 130
6. John Davenant’s Covenant Theology 132
6.2 Covenant in John Davenant’s Theology 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
6.3 Conclusion 145
7. Davenant on the Will of God and the Divine Decrees 147
7.2 General Contours Regarding the Divine Will 149
7.2.1 Voluntas Simplicis Complacentiae 149
7.2.2 Voluntas Providentialis 152
7.2.3 Voluntas Beneplaciti 153
7.3 God’s Will and “For Whom Christ Died” 154
7.4 Conclusion 159
8. Conclusion 161
Notes 163
Bibliography 225
Index 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 the-
ology. 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 consist-
ently 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 ded-
icated. 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 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.
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 con-
tinued to express his admiration for Davenant’s theological judgment re-
garding 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 theolo-
gian 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 sev-
enteenth century. For example, his name appears on the English noncon-
formist 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 bap-
tism 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, sig-
nificantly, it was published only posthumously, in 1650, in a work titled
Dissertationes Duae, which included another treatise of his on predestina-
tion and reprobation.11 Davenant also gave a brief snapshot of his hypo-
thetical 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 contro-
versy 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, crit-
icism that often construes Davenant’s hypothetical universalism as being
Prolegomena 3
outside the pale of Reformed orthodoxy. First, scholars have often too nar-
rowly 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 na-
ture 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 uncom-
fortably.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 re-
garding the Lombardian formula (i.e., “Christ died sufficiently for all; effi-
ciently 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 univer-
salism 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 uni-
versalism 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 nine-
teenth-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 increas-
ingly lumped into the broader class of Amyraldianism or hypothetical uni-
versalism 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 un-
easy relationship between hypothetical universalism and Reformed ortho-
doxy. 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 pe-
riod, studies of Davenant’s theology have been relatively sparse. Morris
Fuller, Davenant’s only biographer, suggested that due to the scholastic na-
ture 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 in-
terest 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 af-
finity with the work done later by Amyraut” and, if anything, was “sui ge-
neris.”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 ex-
tent 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 de-
fense 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
concluded, though not without precedence, that Davenant’s predesti-

narian theology is supralapsarian as opposed to infra-or sublapsarian.42
Second, Clausen suggested that Davenant’s theology was in tension with it-
self, “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 univer-
salism.”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 no-
tion of Christ dying for all and the well-meant offer, is “heresy.”49 Again, al-
though 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 ex-
cluding 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 con-

tain a specific statement which categorically denies a universal intent [re-
specting 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 hypothet-
ical 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 sub-
stantial 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 per-
ceived 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 sim-
ilar.”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 theo-
logical 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 uni-
versalism as a “softening” of the Reformed tradition rather than a “continu-
ation 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 continua-
tion of one trajectory of Reformed thought that had been present from the
early sixteenth century onward. Clear statements of nonspeculative hypo-
thetical 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 hypothet-
ical 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 main-
stream 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 uni-
versalism as tending toward Arminianism.67 Through careful study of the
manuscript evidence of Ward during the Synod of Dordt, Todd made a com-
pelling 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 re-
gurgitation 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 hypo-
thetical 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 at-
tention 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 intro-
ductory essay regarding Davenant’s two loves/intentions of the divine will.81
Donald Macleod likewise gave attention to Davenant’s hypothetical univer-
salism.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 po-
sition, 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 doc-
trine,” Crisp believes that from a dogmatic perspective, “English hypothet-
ical universalism deserves greater attention than it currently enjoys.”88
Jared Compton has similarly argued that Davenant’s hypothetical uni-
versalism demands “careful consideration” and that Davenant “should con-
tinue 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 sec-
ondary 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 hy-
pothetical universalism!90 Second, Compton provides a nice outline of
Davenant’s Dissertation.91 After summarizing Davenant’s argument for hy-
pothetical 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 univer-
salism 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 argu-
ment 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 uni-

versalism 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 univer-
salism, especially by exposing and forestalling many of the caricatures of his
position, is not without some significant problems of its own. Most prob-
lematically, 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 con-
tinuity 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 suffi-
cient 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 hypothet-
ical 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 the-

ological 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 “hy-
pothetical universalism” was the belief that God had instituted a conditional
decree, on account of the death of Christ, whereby God wills to save all, pro-
vided 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 doc-

trine.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 uni-
versalism, and for whom Davenant and Hall gave their hearty approval), une-
quivocally 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 reg-
ularly 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 re-
demption” 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, in-
cluding 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 pre-
serving 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 po-
sition) 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 hypothet-
ical universalism broadly considered and narrowly considered. Broadly con-
sidered, 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 hypo-

thetical universalisms which were often determined by geographic or lin-
guistic 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 re-
mark, “[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 uni-
versal 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 expli-
cating it, they differ from us.121
Thus, the various designations of the Reformed version of universal redemp-

tion 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 uni-
versalism” 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-pre-
sent 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 pe-
riod. 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 de-
note 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 re-
demption, 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 differ-
ently, the debate within the Reformed community—at least as the hypothet-
ical 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 ver-
sion 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 expo-
sition 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 uni-
versalism 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 fur-
ther maintained that his view was in accord with the best of the medieval
tradition, appealing to Peter Lombard and his famous “Lombardian for-
mula” 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 con-
dition: if they should believe. For this intention or ordination of God is ge-
neral, 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
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 con-
troversy 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 inde-
pendent 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 suffi-
ciency 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 re-
garding 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 uni-
versalist 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 examina-
tion of the various Dordtian manuscripts previously unexamined, will sug-
gest 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 theo-
logical exposition of Davenant’s hypothetical universalism.
Chapter 5 gives a detailed exposition of Davenant’s hypothetical uni-
versalism 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 dem-
onstrating 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 tradi-
tion; 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 re-
lated to his exposition of hypothetical universalism: his covenant theology
and his doctrine of the divine will. Chapter 6 looks at Davenant’s federal the-
ology, 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 theolo-
gies 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
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 theolog-
ical development of Reformed theology in the early modern period.1 It was
not uncommon for early modern Protestants and Roman Catholics to con-
tend 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 an-
cient 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 espe-
cially 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
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 cen-
tury, so too did surveys of the early and medieval church regarding the doc-
trine. 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 corres-
ponds 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 mod-
ification of the Lombardian formula represents some of the early dissatis-
faction 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 an-
cient 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, rela-
tively 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 min-
isters 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 ex-
tent 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 redemp-
tion, 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.
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 defi-
nite atonement. It is not altogether clear if Blacketer’s understanding of defi-
nite 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 doc-
trine, 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 mi-
nority 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 lim-
ited 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 lan-
guage. He is also sensitive to the disparate readings of various figures and
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 pa-
tristic authors—that is able to navigate and systematize both the universal-
istic 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 contradic-
tory to or in tension with other language of his.
This chapter will seek to vindicate Davenant’s reading of this period of ec-
clesiastical 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 or-
igin 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, espe-
cially when read against the background of the later chapters of this study, in
strong continuity with 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 hypothet-
ical 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 deter-

mination 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 im-
portant 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 church Fathers were all agreed that the death of Christ was “undertaken
and endured for the redemption of the human race,” though it was “actu-
ally 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 sig-
nifying 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 ge-
neral 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
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 fa-
mous Augustinus still stands as one of the best studies of Augustinian the-
ology, 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 re-
demption.” Yet Baxter alleged that when Augustine used the term “redemp-
tion” 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 interpreta-
tion 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 justifica-
tion 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 contro-
versies, 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
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 doc-
trine 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 prov-
ince . . . 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 ac-
cused 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 cru-
cified 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
redemption. “It is not enough,” says Prosper, “that Christ our Lord was cru-
cified 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 sacra-
ment 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 accom-
plished 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 un-
less it is drunk.73
Jansen, along with other early modern theologians, rightly noticed how sim-
ilar 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 re-
demption 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
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.

John Davenants Hypothetical Universalism A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy Michael J Lynch Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

John Davenants Hypothetical Universalism A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy Michael J Lynch Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

John Davenants Hypothetical Universalism A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy Michael J Lynch Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

John Davenant's Hypothetical

Universalism: A Defense of Catholic

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

© Oxford University Press 2021

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

You must not circulate this work in any other form

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Furthermore, Davenant’s De Morte Christi was republished in 1683, and

secondary literature, often conflated the two theological traditions under

1.2 Survey of Literature

In Davenant we have done our best to pourtray the typical Churchman—​

concluded, though not without precedence, that Davenant’s predesti-

Shand reluctantly acknowledged, however, that “the Canons do not con-

Moore also underestimates the presence of non-​Amyraldian or non-​

delegates continued to affirm the doctrinal points of Dort while distancing

When Moore examined Davenant more particularly, he presented

within Reformed theology and even the orthodoxy of Amyraldianism,71

two divine intentions exegetically or dogmatically compelling, nor did he

with Cameron’s version. Kang contends that Davenant’s hypothetical uni-

Davenant’s hypothetical universalism is placed within his other relevant the-

1.3 Definition of Terms

Given the axiom aequivocationibus ludere, non est Theologorum, sed

1.3.1 The Term “Hypothetical Universalism”

It is important to recognize that “hypothetical universalism” is not a term

hypothetical universalism, he was, at best, suspicious of Cameron’s doc-

Narrowly considered, we may observe that there were varieties of hypo-

Thus, the various designations of the Reformed version of universal redemp-

1.3.2 Other Terms

This study will examine Davenant’s hypothetical universalism in the

understanding of closely related doctrines, such as God’s will, predestination,

1.5 Outline of Argument

The relationship of Davenant’s doctrine of universal redemption with

I believe that no theologian of sound judgment in the Reformed Church

Chapter 2, then, begins the first of three historical chapters, placing

medieval debate over the writings of Gottschalk of Orbais, which marked

Chapter 4 concludes the historical survey portion of this study with a

Scholars have often observed that earlier Christian theological tradition,

off.”5 Although it would be an overstatement to suggest that the Reformed

The second stage of controversy regarding the death of Christ

Explicitly following Godfrey’s work is an essay by Raymond Blacketer on

The whole of that Perswasion [found in Davenant’s De Morte Christi],

2.2 Patristic Period

Knowledge of historical theology was crucial for Davenant in the deter-

2.2.1 Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and Semi-​Pelagianism

accusation of the Pelagians, some in succeeding ages seemed to take this as

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

Section 3. Information about the Project

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

In Davenant we have done our best to pourtray the typical Churchman—

Moore also underestimates the presence of non-Amyraldian or non-

2.2.1 Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and Semi-Pelagianism